Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Dec. 9, 2019

Weihai Kangyi Trading Co., Ltd. v. Bank Leumi USA

Judge
Valerie Caproni
Docket
1:19-cv-04615
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil ProcedureContract
In one sentence

Weihai Kangyi Trading v. Bank Leumi USA: Judge Caproni dismissed the settled case with prejudice and closed it.

Who this affects

The plaintiffs, Weihai Kangyi Trading Co., Ltd. and Greentex Trading Co., Limited, and the defendants named in the case were affected by the dismissal and settlement-related deadlines.

What happened

In Weihai Kangyi Trading Co., Ltd. v. Bank Leumi USA, the parties reached an agreement in principle resolving all issues after a settlement conference before Magistrate Judge Katharine H. Parker.

Judge Caproni canceled the scheduled conferences and deadlines, dismissed the case with prejudice without costs or attorney fees to either side, terminated pending motions, and directed the Clerk to close the case.

Judge Valerie Caproni allowed the parties 45 days to seek reopening for good cause. They could also ask the Court to retain authority to enforce the settlement by submitting the agreement and a request within that period.

The detailed version

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

Case
Weihai Kangyi Trading Co., Ltd. v. Bank Leumi USA · No. 1:19-cv-04615
Judge
Valerie Caproni
Date
Dec. 9, 2019

Background

The parties appeared for a settlement conference before Magistrate Judge Katharine H. Parker on December 6, 2019. The Court was informed that they had reached an agreement in principle resolving all issues.

Order

The Court canceled all previously scheduled conferences and other deadlines. It dismissed the case with prejudice and without costs, including attorney fees, to either party. The Clerk was directed to terminate all open motions and close the case.

Reopening and Settlement Enforcement

The parties could apply to reopen the case within 45 days, but the 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 on that basis.

The order also stated that, if the parties wanted the Court to retain jurisdiction—that is, authority—to enforce their settlement agreement, they had to submit the agreement under Rule 6.A of the Court’s Individual Practices and ask the Court to issue an order expressly retaining that authority within the same 45-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.