Holmes v. City of New York
- Valerie Caproni
- 1:21-cv-10628
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Stanley Holmes v. City of New York, Judge Caproni dismissed the settled case with prejudice and without costs, subject to limited reopening requests.
Stanley Holmes and the City of New York; all scheduled conferences and deadlines were canceled, the case was closed, and either party may seek reopening within 30 days under the conditions stated in the order.
What happened
In Stanley Holmes v. City of New York, the parties told the court that they had reached an agreement on all issues.
The court canceled all scheduled conferences and deadlines, dismissed the case with prejudice and without costs to either party, and directed the clerk to close the case.
Judge Valerie Caproni allowed the parties 30 days to seek reopening for good cause or to ask the court to retain authority to enforce their settlement agreement.
The detailed version
- Holmes v. City of New York · No. 1:21-cv-10628
- Valerie Caproni
- Oct. 10, 2025
Background
On October 9, 2025, the parties notified the court that they had reached an agreement on all issues. The opinion does not describe the agreement’s terms or the underlying claims.
Ruling
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 parties may apply to reopen the case within 30 days, but such an application must show good cause for keeping the case open despite the settlement. A request filed after 30 days or without a showing of good cause may be denied solely on that basis. If the parties want the court to retain jurisdiction—the authority to enforce the settlement agreement—they must, within the same 30-day period, submit the settlement agreement under the court’s individual-practice rule and request an order expressly retaining that authority.
Effect
The case was closed based on the parties’ agreement. The order did not state the agreement’s terms or decide the underlying legal claims. Judge Valerie Caproni also did not state that the court would retain jurisdiction; instead, she explained what the parties must submit to request that result.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.