Keung v. Super Taste Noodle Inc
- Valerie Caproni
- 1:19-cv-06919
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Keung v. Super Taste Noodle, Judge Caproni dismissed the settled case with prejudice and without costs, while allowing a 30-day reopening application.
Lin Kwok Keung and defendants Super Taste Noodle Inc., George L. Wong, trustee, and Faith Wong, trustee.
What happened
In Keung v. Super Taste Noodle 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. It also provided a 30-day period for the parties to seek reopening by showing good cause.
Judge Valerie Caproni dismissed the case with prejudice and without costs, including attorneys’ fees. The parties could also ask the court to retain authority to enforce their settlement if they submitted the settlement agreement and a corresponding request within 30 days.
The detailed version
- Keung v. Super Taste Noodle Inc · No. 1:19-cv-06919
- Valerie Caproni
- Feb. 3, 2020
Background
On February 1, 2020, the parties notified the court that they had reached an agreement in principle resolving all issues. The opinion does not describe the agreement’s terms.
Court’s Action
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 court directed the clerk to terminate all open motions and close the case.
The order allowed the parties to apply to reopen the case within 30 days. Any application had to show good cause for keeping the case open despite the settlement. The order also stated that, if the parties wanted the court to retain jurisdiction—that is, authority—to enforce the settlement agreement, they had to submit the agreement and request that the court expressly retain that authority within the same 30-day period.
Disposition
Judge Valerie Caproni dismissed the case with prejudice and without costs. The order did not decide the underlying claims on their merits.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.