AI Altep Holdings, Inc. v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company
- Valerie Caproni
- 1:19-cv-02148
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In AI Altep Holdings v. Liberty Mutual, Judge Caproni dismissed the settled case with prejudice and without costs, while allowing a 30-day reopening application.
The plaintiffs and Liberty Mutual Insurance Company; the order ended the case after their settlement and addressed possible reopening or court enforcement of that settlement.
What happened
AI Altep Holdings, Inc. v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company involved a settlement reached by the parties on December 17, 2019, before Magistrate Judge James L. Cott. The settlement resolved all issues.
The order canceled all scheduled conferences and other deadlines, terminated all open motions, and directed the Clerk to close the case. It also stated that neither party would receive costs or attorneys’ fees.
Judge Valerie Caproni dismissed the case with prejudice and without costs. The parties could apply to reopen the case within 30 days by showing good cause; they could also ask the court to retain jurisdiction to enforce the settlement by submitting the agreement and a request within that period.
The detailed version
- AI Altep Holdings, Inc. v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company · No. 1:19-cv-02148
- Valerie Caproni
- Dec. 20, 2019
Background
The plaintiffs were AI Altep Holdings, Inc., Nell Limited, Access Industries Holdings LLC, AI International Limited, and Saxony Beach Group Holdings, LLC. The defendant was Liberty Mutual Insurance Company. The order states that the parties reached a settlement on December 17, 2019, at a conference before Magistrate Judge James L. Cott, resolving all issues.
Court’s Orders
The court canceled all previously scheduled conferences and other deadlines. It ordered that the case be dismissed 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
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. The order stated that a request filed after 30 days, or filed without a showing of good cause, could be denied on that basis alone.
The order also explained 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. The order cited Rule 6.A of the court’s Individual Practices and Hendrickson v. United States.
Disposition
Judge Valerie Caproni dismissed the case with prejudice and without costs and directed that it be closed.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.