Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe
- Valerie Caproni
- 1:18-cv-02648
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Strike 3 Holdings v. Doe, Judge Caproni dismissed the settled case with prejudice and without costs, while permitting limited requests to reopen.
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC and John Doe. The case was closed after dismissal with prejudice, with no costs or attorneys’ fees awarded to either party. The parties had 30 days to seek reopening for good cause or to request that the court retain authority to enforce their settlement.
What happened
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC sued John Doe, identified as the subscriber assigned a specified internet address. The parties told the court they had reached an agreement in principle resolving all issues.
The court canceled all scheduled conferences and deadlines, dismissed the case with prejudice, and ordered that neither party receive costs or attorneys’ fees. The Clerk was directed to terminate the open motions and close the case.
Judge Valerie Caproni stated that either party could apply to reopen the case within 30 days by showing good cause. She also explained that the parties could ask the court to retain authority to enforce their settlement if they timely submitted the settlement agreement and a request for that authority.
The detailed version
- Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe · No. 1:18-cv-02648
- Valerie Caproni
- Apr. 1, 2020
Background
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC brought this case against John Doe, described in the caption as the subscriber assigned IP address 24.104.252.172. On March 31, 2020, the parties notified the court that they had reached an agreement in principle resolving all issues.
Court’s Action
The court ordered that all previously scheduled conferences and other deadlines be canceled. 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 stated that, within 30 days, the parties could apply to reopen the case. Such an application had to show good cause for keeping the case open in light of the settlement. The order warned that 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, authority to enforce the settlement agreement—they had to submit the agreement to the court in accordance with Rule 6.A of the court’s Individual Practices and request an order expressly retaining that authority, both within the same 30-day period.
Disposition
Judge Valerie Caproni dismissed the case with prejudice and without costs to either party, terminated the open motions, and directed that the case be closed. The order did not describe the terms of the parties’ settlement or decide the underlying dispute on its merits.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.