Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled May 29, 2020

Hirsch v. Bossipmadamenoire, LLC

Judge
Valerie Caproni
Docket
1:20-cv-02545
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil ProcedureContract
In one sentence

In Hirsch v. Bossipmadamenoire, LLC, Judge Caproni dismissed the settled case with prejudice and without costs, while allowing a limited request to reopen.

Who this affects

Steven Hirsch and Bossipmadamenoire, LLC, whose case was dismissed with prejudice after the court was notified of an agreement in principle.

What happened

Hirsch v. Bossipmadamenoire, LLC ended after the court was told that the parties had reached an agreement in principle resolving all issues. The opinion does not describe the agreement’s terms.

The court canceled all scheduled conferences and deadlines, dismissed the case with prejudice, and ordered that neither party pay costs or attorneys’ fees. It also directed the clerk to terminate open motions and close the case.

Judge Valerie Caproni said the parties could ask to reopen the case within 30 days if they showed good cause. They could also ask the court to retain authority to enforce their settlement by filing the agreement and a jurisdiction request within that period.

The detailed version

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

Case
Hirsch v. Bossipmadamenoire, LLC · No. 1:20-cv-02545
Judge
Valerie Caproni
Date
May 29, 2020

Background

The court was notified on May 28, 2020, by Magistrate Judge Moses that the parties had reached an agreement in principle resolving all issues. The opinion does not provide the agreement’s terms.

Court’s orders

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. The court warned that a request filed after 30 days, or without a showing of good cause, could be denied on that basis alone.

The court also stated that, if the parties wanted it to retain jurisdiction—the 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.

Disposition

Judge Valerie Caproni dismissed the case with prejudice and without costs, terminated the open motions, and closed the case. The order preserved a limited 30-day process for seeking reopening or asking the court to retain jurisdiction to enforce the settlement.

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.