Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Jan. 24, 2020

Vera v. Salon JYB, Inc

Judge
Valerie Caproni
Docket
1:19-cv-06641
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil ProcedureContract
In one sentence

In Vera v. Salon JYB, Judge Caproni dismissed the case with prejudice and without costs after the parties reported an agreement in principle.

Who this affects

Veronica Vera, Salon JYB, Inc., and Site Five Housing Development Fund Corporation. The case was dismissed with prejudice and without costs, but the parties could seek reopening within 30 days for good cause or request that the court retain authority to enforce their settlement.

What happened

In Vera v. Salon JYB, Veronica Vera sued Salon JYB, Inc. and Site Five Housing Development Fund Corporation. The opinion does not describe the underlying claims.

The parties told the court that they had reached an agreement in principle resolving all issues. The court cancelled scheduled conferences and deadlines, dismissed the case with prejudice and without costs—including attorneys’ fees—and directed the clerk to close the case.

Judge Valerie Caproni allowed the parties to seek reopening within 30 days if they showed good cause. They could also ask the court to 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
Vera v. Salon JYB, Inc · No. 1:19-cv-06641
Judge
Valerie Caproni
Date
Jan. 24, 2020

Background

The opinion concerns Veronica Vera’s case against Salon JYB, Inc., doing business as Salon@10, and Site Five Housing Development Fund Corporation. The opinion does not describe the claims or the parties’ underlying dispute.

On January 23, 2020, the parties notified the court that they had reached an agreement in principle resolving all issues.

Court’s Action

The court cancelled all previously scheduled conferences and other deadlines. It dismissed the case with prejudice and without costs, including attorneys’ fees, to either party. It directed the clerk to terminate all open motions and close the case.

The order states that, within 30 days, the parties could apply to reopen the case. Any such application had to show good cause for keeping the case open despite the settlement. A request filed after 30 days or without a showing of good cause could be denied on that basis alone.

The parties could also ask the court to retain jurisdiction—that is, continuing authority—to enforce their settlement agreement. To do so, they had to submit the settlement agreement and request an order expressly retaining jurisdiction within the same 30-day period.

Classification

This is a procedural order because the court dismissed the case after the parties reported an agreement in principle rather than deciding the underlying claims.

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.