Guglielmo v. Lover's Lane & Co.
- Valerie Caproni
- 1:20-cv-00030
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Guglielmo v. Lover’s Lane, Judge Caproni dismissed the settled case with prejudice and without costs, while allowing limited reopening requests.
The plaintiff and defendant are affected because the case was dismissed with prejudice, without costs or attorneys’ fees to either party, and closed. Either party could seek reopening within 30 days by showing good cause; the parties could also request that the court retain jurisdiction to enforce their settlement agreement.
What happened
Guglielmo v. Lover’s Lane & Co. was a proposed class case in which 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 attorneys’ fees—and closed the case. The parties could ask to reopen it within 30 days by showing good cause. They could also ask the court to retain authority to enforce their settlement by submitting the agreement and a separate request within that period.
Judge Valerie Caproni entered the order on April 30, 2020. The order did not decide the underlying claims because the case was resolved through an agreement in principle.
The detailed version
- Guglielmo v. Lover's Lane & Co. · No. 1:20-cv-00030
- Valerie Caproni
- Apr. 30, 2020
Background
Joseph Guglielmo brought the case on behalf of himself and others similarly situated against Lover’s Lane & Co. On April 27, 2020, the parties notified the court that they had reached an agreement in principle resolving all issues.
Court’s Order
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 parties were permitted to apply to reopen the case within 30 days. Any such application had to show good cause for keeping the case open despite the settlement and had to be filed within that 30-day period. The order also stated that, if the parties wanted the court to retain jurisdiction—meaning authority—to enforce the settlement agreement, they had to submit the agreement and request that the court expressly retain jurisdiction within the same 30-day period.
Result
Judge Valerie Caproni dismissed the case with prejudice and without costs and directed that it be closed. The order did not resolve the underlying claims on their merits; it followed the parties’ agreement in principle.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.