Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Apr. 7, 2020

Guglielmo v. Deep Sentinel Corp.

Judge
Valerie Caproni
Docket
1:19-cv-10606
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil ProcedureContract
In one sentence

In Guglielmo v. Deep Sentinel Corp., Judge Caproni dismissed the settled case with prejudice and without costs, while allowing a 30-day reopening request.

Who this affects

The dismissal affected Joseph Guglielmo and Deep Sentinel Corp.; the order also canceled the case's scheduled conferences and deadlines and closed the case.

What happened

In Guglielmo v. Deep Sentinel Corp., 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 without costs, and directed the clerk to close the case and terminate open motions.

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 written request.

The detailed version

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

Case
Guglielmo v. Deep Sentinel Corp. · No. 1:19-cv-10606
Judge
Valerie Caproni
Date
Apr. 7, 2020

Background

Joseph Guglielmo brought this case against Deep Sentinel Corp. on behalf of himself and others similarly situated. The opinion does not describe the underlying claims. On April 6, 2020, the parties notified the court that they had reached an agreement in principle resolving all issues.

Ruling

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 clerk was directed to terminate all open motions and close the case.

The order allowed the parties to apply to reopen the case within 30 days. Any such application had to show good cause for keeping the case open in light of the parties’ settlement. The order also stated that a request filed after 30 days or without a showing of good cause could be denied on that basis alone.

If the parties wanted the court to retain authority to enforce their settlement agreement, they had to submit the agreement and request an order expressly retaining that authority within the same 30-day period.

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.