Grullon v. Lewis
- Valerie Caproni
- 1:24-cv-04892
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Grullon v. Lewis, Judge Caproni dismissed the settled case with prejudice and without costs, while allowing a 30-day reopening application.
Luis Grullon and defendants Steven D. Lewis p/k/a “TANA,” Giuseppe Zappala, Galactic Records, Republic Records, and UMG Recordings, Inc.
What happened
Grullon v. Lewis involved Luis Grullon and defendants Steven D. Lewis p/k/a “TANA,” Giuseppe Zappala, Galactic Records, Republic Records, and UMG Recordings, Inc. The court was told that an agreement had been reached on all issues through the magistrate judge.
The court canceled all scheduled conferences and deadlines, dismissed the case with prejudice and without costs—including attorneys’ fees—and directed the Clerk to terminate open motions and close the case. The parties could apply to reopen the case within 30 days by showing good cause.
Judge Valerie Caproni entered the order. The order also said that, within the same 30-day period, the parties could ask the court to retain jurisdiction to enforce their settlement agreement by submitting the agreement and a request for an order retaining jurisdiction.
The detailed version
- Grullon v. Lewis · No. 1:24-cv-04892
- Valerie Caproni
- July 23, 2025
Background
On July 17, 2025, the court was notified that the parties had reached an agreement on all issues through the magistrate judge. The opinion does not describe the underlying claims or the terms of the agreement.
Order
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. “With prejudice” means the case was closed in a way that generally bars refiling the same claims. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate all open motions and close the case.
Reopening and enforcement
Within 30 days of the order, the parties could apply to reopen the case. The application had to show good cause for keeping the case open despite the settlement and had to be filed within that 30-day period. The order stated that a late application or one lacking a showing of good cause could be denied on that basis alone.
If the parties wanted the court to retain jurisdiction to enforce their settlement agreement, they had to submit the agreement under Rule 7.A of the court’s Individual Practices and request an order expressly retaining jurisdiction, also within 30 days.
Disposition
The court dismissed the case with prejudice and without costs, terminated the open motions, and closed the case. The order did not decide the underlying claims on their merits.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.