Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Jan. 10, 2020

Keung v. E Noodle Group Inc

Judge
Valerie Caproni
Docket
1:19-cv-02180
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil ProcedureContract
In one sentence

In Keung v. E Noodle Group Inc., Judge Caproni dismissed the case with prejudice after the parties reported an agreement resolving all issues.

Who this affects

The dismissal affected Lin Kwok Keung and defendants E Noodle Group Inc., doing business as E Noodle Chinatown, and Tsung Tsin Association, Inc. The case was closed based on the parties’ reported agreement in principle.

What happened

In Keung v. E Noodle Group 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 ordered the case closed. It also ordered that neither party would pay costs or attorneys’ fees.

Judge Valerie Caproni dismissed the case with prejudice. The parties could ask to reopen it within 30 days by showing good cause; they could also request that the court retain authority to enforce their settlement by submitting the agreement and a separate request within that period.

The detailed version

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

Case
Keung v. E Noodle Group Inc · No. 1:19-cv-02180
Judge
Valerie Caproni
Date
Jan. 10, 2020

Background

The plaintiff, Lin Kwok Keung, sued E Noodle Group Inc., doing business as E Noodle Chinatown, and Tsung Tsin Association, Inc. On January 9, 2020, the parties notified the court that they had reached an agreement in principle resolving all issues. The opinion does not describe the underlying claims or the settlement’s terms.

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. Such an application had to show good cause for keeping the case open in light of the settlement, and a request filed after 30 days or without a showing of good cause could be denied on that basis alone. 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 agreement and request an order expressly retaining jurisdiction within the same 30-day period.

Disposition

Judge Valerie Caproni dismissed the case with prejudice and without costs, including attorneys’ fees, and directed that it be closed. The opinion does not state whether the parties later sought to reopen the case or asked the court to retain jurisdiction.

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.