Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Mar. 9, 2020

Guglielmo v. Grizzly Industrial, Inc.

Judge
Valerie Caproni
Docket
1:19-cv-10390
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil ProcedureContract
In one sentence

In Guglielmo v. Grizzly, Judge Caproni dismissed the settled case with prejudice and without costs, while allowing a possible reopening application within 30 days.

Who this affects

Joseph Guglielmo and Grizzly Industrial, Inc.; the case was closed after the parties reported an agreement in principle, with no costs or attorneys’ fees awarded to either side.

What happened

In Guglielmo v. Grizzly Industrial, Inc., the parties told the court they had reached an agreement in principle resolving all issues. The order does not describe the underlying claims or the settlement’s terms.

The court canceled all scheduled conferences and deadlines, dismissed the case with prejudice and without costs, including attorneys’ fees, and directed the clerk to close the case and terminate all open motions.

Judge Valerie Caproni also said the parties could apply to reopen the case within 30 days if they showed good cause. They could ask the court to retain authority to enforce their settlement only by submitting the settlement agreement and a request within that same period.

The detailed version

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

Case
Guglielmo v. Grizzly Industrial, Inc. · No. 1:19-cv-10390
Judge
Valerie Caproni
Date
Mar. 9, 2020

Background

On March 6, 2020, the parties notified the court that they had reached an agreement in principle resolving all issues. The opinion does not state the nature of the plaintiff’s claims or the terms of the agreement.

Court’s Order

The court canceled all previously scheduled conferences and other deadlines. It dismissed the case with prejudice, meaning the case could not ordinarily be brought again, and ordered that neither party would receive costs, including attorneys’ fees. The clerk was directed to terminate all open motions and close the case.

The order allowed either party to apply to reopen the case within 30 days. The 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 court also stated that, if the parties wanted the court to retain jurisdiction—legal 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

The case was dismissed with prejudice and without costs, and the court directed that it be closed. The order did not itself state that the court retained jurisdiction to enforce the settlement.

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.