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

Deleston v. East of Harlem Limited Liability Company

Judge
Valerie Caproni
Docket
1:19-cv-05841
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil ProcedureContract
In one sentence

In Deleston v. East of Harlem, Judge Caproni dismissed the case with prejudice and without costs after the parties reached an agreement in principle.

Who this affects

Plaintiff Jermaine Deleston and defendants East of Harlem Limited Liability Company d/b/a B2 Harlem and Glimmer Five LLC.

What happened

In Deleston v. East of Harlem Limited Liability Company, the court received a mediator’s report stating that the parties had reached an agreement in principle resolving all issues after court-ordered mediation.

The court cancelled all scheduled conferences and deadlines, dismissed the case with prejudice and without costs, including attorneys’ fees, and directed the Clerk to close the case and terminate pending motions.

Judge Valerie Caproni allowed the parties 30 days to seek reopening for good cause and to ask the court to retain authority to enforce their settlement agreement, if they submitted the agreement and a proper request during that period.

The detailed version

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

Case
Deleston v. East of Harlem Limited Liability Company · No. 1:19-cv-05841
Judge
Valerie Caproni
Date
May 29, 2020

Background

The court stated that it had received a final report from the mediator on May 28, 2020. The report said that the parties had reached an agreement in principle resolving all issues after court-ordered mediation. The opinion does not describe the agreement’s terms.

Order

The court cancelled all previously scheduled conferences and other deadlines. It dismissed the case with prejudice and without costs, including attorneys’ fees, to either party. It also directed the Clerk of Court to terminate all open motions and close the case.

The order allowed the parties 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 the court warned that an application filed after 30 days or without a showing of good cause could be denied on that basis alone.

The court further stated that, if the parties wanted it to retain jurisdiction—that is, continuing authority—to enforce their settlement agreement, they had to submit the agreement and request an order expressly retaining jurisdiction within the same 30-day period.

Disposition

Judge Valerie Caproni dismissed the case with prejudice and without costs and ordered the case closed. The order did not decide the underlying claims on their merits.

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.