Cruz v. Utrecht Manufacturing Corporation
- Valerie Caproni
- 1:20-cv-01907
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Cruz v. Utrecht Manufacturing Corporation, Judge Caproni dismissed the settled case with prejudice and without costs, while allowing a 30-day reopening request.
Shael Cruz and Utrecht Manufacturing Corporation were affected by the dismissal, cancellation of deadlines, termination of open motions, and closure of the case. Either party could seek reopening within 30 days under the conditions stated in the order.
What happened
In Cruz v. Utrecht Manufacturing Corporation, the parties told the court that they 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, and directed the Clerk to close the case. Within 30 days, the parties could ask to reopen the case by showing good cause. They could also ask the court to retain authority to enforce their settlement by submitting the agreement and a request within that period.
Judge Valerie Caproni issued the order on July 7, 2020.
The detailed version
- Cruz v. Utrecht Manufacturing Corporation · No. 1:20-cv-01907
- Valerie Caproni
- July 7, 2020
Background
On July 6, 2020, the parties notified the court that they had reached an agreement in principle resolving all issues. The opinion does not describe the settlement’s terms.
Order
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. “With prejudice” means the case was closed in a way that generally bars refiling the same claims. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate all open motions and close the case.
The parties could apply to reopen the case within 30 days, but the application had to show good cause for keeping the case open despite the settlement. The order stated that a request 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—the authority to enforce the settlement—they had to submit the settlement 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 and directed that it be closed. The order did not decide the underlying claims on their merits; it resolved the case based on the parties’ agreement in principle.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.