Firman v. Wolters Kluwer N.V.
- Valerie Caproni
- 1:19-cv-05368
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Firman v. Wolters Kluwer, Judge Caproni dismissed the settled case with prejudice and without costs, subject to a 30-day reopening request.
William Firman, Wolters Kluwer N.V., and CT Corporation System were affected by the dismissal, the cancellation of deadlines, the closure of the case, and the 30-day procedures concerning reopening and settlement enforcement.
What happened
In Firman v. Wolters Kluwer N.V. and CT Corporation System, the court was informed that the parties had reached an agreement in principle resolving all issues.
The court canceled scheduled conferences and deadlines, dismissed the case with prejudice, and ordered that neither party would receive costs or attorneys’ fees. The clerk was directed to terminate pending motions and close the case.
Judge Valerie Caproni allowed the parties 30 days to seek reopening for good cause. The parties also had 30 days to ask the court to retain jurisdiction to enforce their settlement agreement by submitting the agreement and a proper request.
The detailed version
- Firman v. Wolters Kluwer N.V. · No. 1:19-cv-05368
- Valerie Caproni
- Nov. 15, 2019
Background
The court was notified by Magistrate Debra Freeman that the parties had reached an agreement in principle resolving all issues. The order does not describe the claims, the settlement terms, or the parties’ underlying positions.
Ruling
The court ordered that all previously scheduled conferences and other deadlines be canceled. 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.
Reopening and Settlement Enforcement
Within 30 days, the parties could apply to reopen the case. The application had to show good cause for keeping the case open in light of the settlement, and a late or unsupported request could be denied on that basis. If the parties wanted the court to retain jurisdiction to enforce the settlement agreement, they had to submit the agreement under Rule 6.A of the court’s Individual Practices and request an order expressly retaining that jurisdiction within the same 30-day period.
Effect of the Order
The order ended the case with prejudice but created a limited 30-day procedure for seeking reopening or requesting continued court jurisdiction to enforce the settlement. It 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.