Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled June 11, 2020

Kerr v. Physician Affiliate Group of New York P.C.

Judge
Valerie Caproni
Docket
1:17-cv-01777
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil ProcedureContract
In one sentence

In Kerr v. Physician Affiliate Group of New York P.C., Judge Caproni dismissed the settled case with prejudice and without costs.

Who this affects

Plaintiff Andrew Kerr, M.D., and defendants Physician Affiliate Group of New York P.C. and Dr. Hussein Matari, individually. The case was closed after the parties reached an agreement in principle, subject to the stated 30-day procedures for reopening or retaining jurisdiction to enforce the settlement.

What happened

In Kerr v. Physician Affiliate Group of New York P.C., the court received notice that the parties had reached an agreement in principle resolving all issues.

The court canceled all scheduled conferences and deadlines, dismissed the case with prejudice and without costs, including attorneys’ fees, terminated all open motions, and directed the clerk to close the case.

Judge 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, subject to submitting the agreement and a separate request.

The detailed version

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

Case
Kerr v. Physician Affiliate Group of New York P.C. · No. 1:17-cv-01777
Judge
Valerie Caproni
Date
June 11, 2020

Background

The court stated that Magistrate Judge Lehrburger had notified it that the parties reached an agreement in principle resolving all issues. The opinion does not describe the underlying claims or the settlement’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 within 30 days to reopen the case. Any such application had to show good cause for keeping the case open despite the settlement, and a request filed after 30 days or without a showing of good cause could be denied on that basis alone.

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

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.