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 canceled deadlines and ordered dismissal with prejudice unless the parties objected before December 14 after reaching a settlement.

Who this affects

Willis RE Inc., David Littell, and Lockton Re, LLC were affected by the canceled deadlines and the conditional dismissal order.

What happened

Willis RE Inc. v. Littell involved a dispute that the parties told the court they had agreed in principle to resolve through a settlement.

The court canceled all previously scheduled conferences and other deadlines. It ordered that the case would be dismissed with prejudice and without costs, including attorneys’ fees, on December 14, 2019, unless a party filed a letter before then explaining why the case should not be dismissed.

Judge Valerie Caproni also said the parties had to submit their settlement agreement and request that the court retain authority to enforce it by December 7, 2019, if they wanted that authority retained. The order did not decide the underlying dispute.

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

On November 12, 2019, the parties notified the court that they had reached an agreement in principle resolving all issues in the action.

Order

The court canceled all previously scheduled conferences and other deadlines. It ordered that the action would be dismissed with prejudice and without costs, including attorneys’ fees, to either party on December 14, 2019, unless one or more parties filed a letter before that date requesting that the action not be dismissed and explaining why dismissal was inappropriate in light of the settlement. The order stated that a request filed on or after December 14 could be denied solely because it was late.

Settlement Enforcement

The court stated that, if the parties wanted it to retain jurisdiction—meaning legal authority—to enforce their settlement agreement, they had to submit the agreement and request an order expressly retaining that authority by December 7, 2019. The opinion does not state whether the parties submitted that request or whether the action was later dismissed.

Disposition

The court entered a conditional order providing for dismissal with prejudice and without costs on December 14, 2019, subject to a timely request not to dismiss. Judge Valerie Caproni did not resolve the underlying dispute on its merits.

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.