Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Nov. 14, 2019

Vuppala v. Enoteca, Inc.

Judge
Valerie Caproni
Docket
1:19-cv-01439
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil ProcedureContract
In one sentence

In Vuppala v. Enoteca, Judge Caproni dismissed the settled case with prejudice and without costs.

Who this affects

Kiran Vuppala and defendants Enoteca, Inc., doing business as La Lanterna Di Vittorio, and 129 Macdougal Street Associates, Inc.; the case was dismissed with prejudice and without costs to either party.

What happened

In Vuppala v. Enoteca, Inc., the parties told the court they had reached an agreement in principle resolving all issues.

The court canceled previously scheduled conferences and deadlines and directed the Clerk of Court to terminate open motions and close the case.

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

The detailed version

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

Case
Vuppala v. Enoteca, Inc. · No. 1:19-cv-01439
Judge
Valerie Caproni
Date
Nov. 14, 2019

Background

On November 13, 2019, the parties notified the court that they had reached an agreement in principle resolving all issues. The opinion does not describe the underlying claims or the settlement’s terms.

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.

Reopening and Settlement Enforcement

The parties could apply to reopen the case within 30 days by showing good cause for keeping it open despite the settlement. The order states that a request filed after 30 days, or without a showing of good cause, could be denied on that basis alone. If the parties wanted the court to retain jurisdiction—continuing authority—to enforce their settlement agreement, they had to submit the agreement and request an order expressly retaining jurisdiction within the same 30-day period.

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.