Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled May 28, 2020

Guglielmo v. Miniature Market, LLC

Judge
Valerie Caproni
Docket
1:20-cv-00821
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil ProcedureContract
In one sentence

In Guglielmo v. Miniature Market, Judge Caproni dismissed the settled case with prejudice and without costs, while allowing limited requests to reopen.

Who this affects

Joseph Guglielmo and Miniature Market, LLC; the case was closed, with no costs or attorneys’ fees awarded to either party.

What happened

In Guglielmo v. Miniature Market, LLC, 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 would pay costs or attorneys’ fees. The court also directed the Clerk to close the case.

Judge Caproni allowed the parties 30 days to ask to reopen the case for good cause. During that period, they could also ask the court to keep authority to enforce their settlement by submitting the agreement and a specific request.

The detailed version

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

Case
Guglielmo v. Miniature Market, LLC · No. 1:20-cv-00821
Judge
Valerie Caproni
Date
May 28, 2020

Background

On May 26, 2020, Joseph Guglielmo and Miniature Market, LLC notified the court that they had reached an agreement in principle resolving all issues. The opinion does not describe the underlying claims or the settlement’s terms.

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

The order allowed the parties to apply within 30 days to reopen the case. Such an application had to show good cause for keeping the case open despite the settlement. The order also stated that, within the same 30-day period, the parties could ask the court to retain jurisdiction—meaning authority—to enforce the settlement agreement by submitting the agreement and requesting an order expressly retaining that authority. Requests filed after 30 days or without a showing of good cause could be denied on that basis.

Classification

This is a procedural order because the court closed the case based on the parties’ settlement rather than deciding the underlying legal claims.

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.