Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled May 8, 2020

Green v. Capital One, N.A.

Judge
Valerie Caproni
Docket
1:19-cv-10899
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil ProcedureContract
In one sentence

In Green v. Capital One, Judge Caproni dismissed the case with prejudice after the parties reached an agreement in principle through court-ordered mediation.

Who this affects

Dasharah Green and Capital One, N.A.; the case was closed after the parties reached an agreement in principle, subject to the limited 30-day procedures described in the order.

What happened

Green v. Capital One, N.A. ended after a mediator reported that the parties had reached an agreement in principle resolving all issues through court-ordered mediation.

The court canceled scheduled conferences and deadlines, dismissed the case with prejudice without costs or attorneys’ fees to either party, terminated open motions, and closed the case. The parties could ask to reopen it within 30 days by showing good cause.

Judge Valerie Caproni also said the parties could ask the court to retain authority to enforce their settlement by submitting the agreement and a proper request within that same 30-day period.

The detailed version

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

Case
Green v. Capital One, N.A. · No. 1:19-cv-10899
Judge
Valerie Caproni
Date
May 8, 2020

Background

The court received a final report from the mediator stating that Green and Capital One, N.A. had reached an agreement in principle resolving all issues after court-ordered mediation. The order does not state the settlement’s terms.

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

Possibility of Reopening or Retaining Jurisdiction

Within 30 days, the parties could apply to reopen the case by showing good cause for keeping it open despite their settlement. The court 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 jurisdiction—that is, authority—to enforce their settlement agreement, they had to submit the agreement under Rule 6.A of the court’s Individual Practices and request an order expressly retaining that authority within the same 30-day period.

Disposition

Judge Valerie Caproni dismissed the case with prejudice, canceled the remaining deadlines, terminated the open motions, and directed that the case be closed. The order resolved the case through settlement rather than deciding the underlying dispute.

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.