Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Mar. 3, 2025

Darezzo v. Manhattan Perfume Inc.

Judge
Valerie Caproni
Docket
1:24-cv-06327
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil ProcedureContract
In one sentence

In Darezzo v. Manhattan Perfume Inc., Judge Caproni dismissed the settled case with prejudice and without costs.

Who this affects

Claudio Darezzo, Manhattan Perfume Inc., and Gilsey House, Inc.; the case was dismissed with prejudice and without costs, subject to the stated 30-day procedures for seeking reopening or retention of jurisdiction to enforce the settlement.

What happened

In Darezzo v. Manhattan Perfume Inc., Claudio Darezzo and Manhattan Perfume Inc. and Gilsey House, Inc. told the court that they had reached an agreement resolving all issues.

The court canceled scheduled conferences and deadlines, terminated all open motions, and closed the case. It dismissed the case with prejudice and ordered that neither party pay costs or attorneys’ fees.

Judge Caproni also allowed the parties to ask within 30 days to reopen the case for good cause. Within that period, they could ask the court to retain authority to enforce their settlement by submitting the agreement and a request for that authority.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Darezzo v. Manhattan Perfume Inc. · No. 1:24-cv-06327
Judge
Valerie Caproni
Date
Mar. 3, 2025

Background

On February 26, 2025, the parties notified the court that they had reached an agreement on all issues. The order does not describe the agreement’s terms or the underlying claims.

Court’s action

The court canceled all previously scheduled conferences and other deadlines. It dismissed the case with prejudice and without costs, including attorneys’ fees, to either party. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate all open motions and close the case.

The parties were permitted to apply within 30 days to reopen the case. Any such application had to show good cause for keeping the case open despite the settlement. The order states that a request filed after 30 days or without a showing of good cause could be denied solely on that basis.

The court also stated that, if the parties wanted the court to retain jurisdiction—legal authority—to enforce their settlement agreement, they had to submit the agreement and request an order expressly retaining that authority within the same 30-day period.

Classification

This is a procedural order. The court dismissed the settled case and did not decide the merits of the underlying dispute.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.