Bowen v. 224 Realties, LLC
- Valerie Caproni
- 1:19-cv-11813
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Bowen v. 224 Realties, Judge Caproni dismissed the settled case with prejudice, without costs, and closed it.
Daniel Bowen, 224 Realties, LLC, and Fenbin Chen were affected: the case was dismissed with prejudice, without costs or attorney fees, and closed after the parties reported reaching an agreement in principle.
What happened
Bowen v. 224 Realties, LLC was brought by Daniel Bowen against 224 Realties, LLC and Fenbin Chen, doing business as No. 1 Pioneer Chinese Restaurant, also known as Pioneer Restaurant. The opinion does not describe the underlying claims.
The parties told the court they had reached an agreement in principle resolving all issues. The court canceled scheduled conferences and deadlines, dismissed the case with prejudice and without costs, including attorney fees, terminated pending motions, and directed the clerk to close the case.
Judge Valerie Caproni issued the order. The parties had 30 days to ask to reopen the case by showing good cause. They could also ask the court to keep authority to enforce their settlement by submitting the agreement and a request within that same period.
The detailed version
- Bowen v. 224 Realties, LLC · No. 1:19-cv-11813
- Valerie Caproni
- Apr. 9, 2020
Background
Daniel Bowen sued 224 Realties, LLC and Fenbin Chen, doing business as No. 1 Pioneer Chinese Restaurant, also known as Pioneer Restaurant. The order does not identify the claims or describe the underlying dispute.
Settlement and ruling
On April 8, 2020, the parties notified Judge Valerie Caproni that they had reached an agreement in principle resolving all issues. The court therefore ordered that all previously scheduled conferences and other deadlines were canceled.
The court dismissed the case with prejudice and without costs, including attorney fees, to either party. It directed the clerk 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 of the order. The application had to show good cause for keeping the case open despite the settlement. The order states that a request filed after 30 days, or without a showing of good cause, could be denied solely on that basis.
If the parties wanted the court to retain authority to enforce their settlement agreement, they had to submit the agreement to the court and request an order expressly retaining that authority within the same 30-day period.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.