Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Nov. 13, 2019

Willis RE Inc. v. Littell

Judge
Valerie Caproni
Docket
1:19-cv-09087
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil ProcedureContract
In one sentence

In Willis RE Inc. v. Littell, Judge Caproni dismissed the settled case with prejudice and without costs, while allowing limited reopening requests.

Who this affects

Willis RE Inc., David Littell, and Lockton Re, LLC; the case was closed after the parties reported an agreement in principle.

What happened

Willis RE Inc. v. Littell involved Willis RE Inc. and defendants David Littell and Lockton Re, LLC. The parties told the court they had reached an agreement in principle resolving all issues.

The court canceled all scheduled conferences and deadlines, dismissed the case with prejudice and without costs or attorneys’ fees, terminated all open motions, and closed the case. Within 30 days, the parties could ask to reopen the case by showing good cause.

Judge Valerie Caproni also said the parties could ask the court to retain authority to enforce their settlement if they submitted the settlement agreement and a request within the same 30-day period.

The detailed version

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

Case
Willis RE Inc. v. Littell · No. 1:19-cv-09087
Judge
Valerie Caproni
Date
Nov. 13, 2019

Background

Willis RE Inc. sued David Littell and Lockton Re, LLC. The opinion does not describe the underlying claims or the parties’ settlement terms.

Court’s Order

The parties notified the court on November 12, 2019, that they had reached an agreement in principle resolving all issues. Based on that notice, the court canceled all previously scheduled conferences and other deadlines.

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

Possible Reopening and Settlement Enforcement

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

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

Disposition

Judge Valerie Caproni dismissed the case with prejudice and without costs, terminated the open motions, and closed the case, subject to the order’s limited 30-day procedures for reopening or retaining authority to enforce the settlement.

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.