Trustees for The Mason Tenders District Council Welfare Fund v. Masonry
Trustees for The Mason Tenders District Council Welfare Fund, Pension Fund, Annuity Fund, and Training Program Fund v. Terranova Masonry, Inc.
- Valerie Caproni
- 1:19-cv-10913
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Trustees v. Terranova Masonry, Judge Caproni dismissed the case with prejudice after the parties agreed in principle to resolve all issues.
The petitioners and Terranova Masonry, Inc.; the case was dismissed with prejudice, with no costs or attorneys’ fees awarded to either side, subject to the stated 30-day procedures for reopening or requesting authority to enforce the settlement.
What happened
In Trustees for The Mason Tenders District Council Welfare Fund, Pension Fund, Annuity Fund, and Training Program Fund v. Terranova Masonry, Inc., 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 side would pay costs or attorneys’ fees. The Clerk was directed to terminate pending motions and close the case.
Judge Valerie Caproni also allowed the parties to ask to reopen the case within 30 days if they showed good cause. If they wanted the court to enforce their settlement, they had to submit the agreement and ask the court to keep authority over enforcement during that same 30-day period.
The detailed version
- Trustees for The Mason Tenders District Council Welfare Fund v. Masonry · No. 1:19-cv-10913
- Valerie Caproni
- June 11, 2020
Background
The petitioners were the Trustees for The Mason Tenders District Council Welfare Fund, Pension Fund, Annuity Fund, and Training Program Fund, and Robert Bonanza, as Business Manager of the Mason Tenders District Council of Greater New York. Terranova Masonry, Inc. was the respondent. On June 9, 2020, the parties notified the court that they had reached an agreement in principle resolving all issues. The order does not describe the underlying dispute or the terms of that agreement.
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.
Possible Reopening and Settlement Enforcement
The parties could apply to reopen the case within 30 days of the order, but the application had to show good cause for keeping the case open despite the settlement. The court stated that an application 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—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.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.