Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled May 21, 2025

Pignatelli v. Pacific Indemnity Company

Judge
Valerie Caproni
Docket
1:23-cv-05363
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil ProcedureContract
In one sentence

In Pignatelli v. Pacific Indemnity Company, Judge Caproni dismissed the settled case with prejudice and without costs.

Who this affects

Federico Pignatelli, The Pignatelli Trust, and Pacific Indemnity Company. The case was dismissed with prejudice and without costs, including attorneys’ fees; the parties had 30 days to seek reopening for good cause or to request that the court retain jurisdiction to enforce their settlement.

What happened

Pignatelli v. Pacific Indemnity Company involved Federico Pignatelli and The Pignatelli Trust against Pacific Indemnity Company. The court was told that mediation produced an agreement resolving all issues.

The court canceled all scheduled conferences and other deadlines, terminated all open motions, and directed the clerk to close the case.

Judge Caproni dismissed the case with prejudice and without costs, including attorneys’ fees. The parties could ask to reopen the case within 30 days by showing good cause; they could also ask the court to retain jurisdiction to enforce their settlement by submitting the agreement and a separate request within that period.

The detailed version

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

Case
Pignatelli v. Pacific Indemnity Company · No. 1:23-cv-05363
Judge
Valerie Caproni
Date
May 21, 2025

Background

The court was notified that Federico Pignatelli and The Pignatelli Trust, as plaintiffs, and Pacific Indemnity Company, as defendant, had reached an agreement through mediation resolving all issues.

Court’s Orders

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 was directed to terminate all open motions and close the case.

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

The parties could also ask the court to retain jurisdiction—meaning continuing authority—to enforce their settlement agreement. To do so, they had to submit the settlement agreement under Rule 7.A of the court’s Individual Practices and request an order expressly retaining jurisdiction, all within the same 30-day period.

Disposition

Judge Valerie Caproni dismissed the case with prejudice and without costs, including attorneys’ fees, and directed that the case be closed. The order does not decide the underlying merits of the parties’ 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.