Young v. Hasbrouck House, LLC
- Valerie Caproni
- 1:19-cv-09242
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Young v. Hasbrouck House, LLC, Judge Caproni dismissed the settled case with prejudice and without costs, while allowing limited reopening requests.
The dismissal directly affected Lawrence Young and Hasbrouck House, LLC; the case was brought on behalf of Young and other similarly situated persons.
What happened
Young v. Hasbrouck House, LLC involved Lawrence Young, who sued on behalf of himself and similarly situated people. The parties told the court they had reached an agreement in principle resolving all issues.
The court canceled all scheduled conferences and deadlines. It dismissed the case with prejudice and without costs, including attorneys’ fees, directed the Clerk to terminate open motions, and closed the case.
Judge Valerie Caproni allowed the parties to seek reopening within 30 days if they showed good cause. The court also stated that the parties could ask it to retain jurisdiction to enforce their settlement agreement by submitting the agreement and a separate request within that period.
The detailed version
- Young v. Hasbrouck House, LLC · No. 1:19-cv-09242
- Valerie Caproni
- Feb. 28, 2020
Background
Lawrence Young brought the case on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated. The opinion states that, on February 27, 2020, the parties notified the court that they had reached an agreement in principle resolving all issues. The order does not describe the settlement’s terms.
Ruling
The court ordered that all previously scheduled conferences and other deadlines were canceled. It dismissed the case with prejudice and without costs, including attorneys’ fees, to either party. It directed the Clerk of Court to terminate all open motions and close the case.
Possible Reopening and Settlement Enforcement
The parties could apply to reopen the case within 30 days. Such an application had to show good cause for keeping the case open despite the settlement, and 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, continuing 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. The order cited Rule 6.A of the court’s Individual Practices and Hendrickson v. United States, 791 F.3d 354 (2d Cir. 2015).
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.