Joe Hand Promotions, Inc. v. Elvin
- Valerie Caproni
- 1:19-cv-09997
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
Judge Caproni dismissed Joe Hand Promotions v. Elvin with prejudice after the parties reported reaching a settlement.
Joe Hand Promotions, Inc., Tonia Elvin, and 10:02 Associates Inc.; the case was closed after the parties reported reaching a settlement.
What happened
Joe Hand Promotions, Inc. sued Tonia Elvin and 10:02 Associates Inc. The parties told the court they had reached an agreement in principle resolving all issues.
The court canceled all scheduled conferences and deadlines, terminated all open motions, and closed the case. The opinion does not describe the underlying claims or the settlement terms.
Judge Valerie Caproni dismissed Joe Hand Promotions, Inc. v. Elvin with prejudice and without costs, including attorneys’ fees, to either party. The parties could seek to reopen the case within 30 days by showing good cause, and could ask the court to retain authority to enforce their settlement by submitting the agreement and a separate request within that period.
The detailed version
- Joe Hand Promotions, Inc. v. Elvin · No. 1:19-cv-09997
- Valerie Caproni
- Nov. 26, 2019
Background
Joe Hand Promotions, Inc. brought this case against Tonia Elvin, individually and as an officer, director, shareholder, and/or principal of 10:02 Associates Inc., and against 10:02 Associates Inc. The opinion does not state the claims or the terms of the parties’ settlement.
On November 25, 2019, the parties notified the court that they had reached an agreement in principle resolving all issues.
Court’s Order
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.
The order allowed the parties to apply to reopen the case within 30 days. Any such application had to show good cause for keeping the case open despite the settlement. The order stated that a request filed after 30 days or without a showing of good cause could be denied solely for that reason.
The order also stated that, if the parties wanted the court to retain jurisdiction—meaning authority to enforce the settlement agreement—they had to submit the settlement agreement and request an order expressly retaining jurisdiction within the same 30-day period.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.