Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled July 23, 2020

Pantaleoni v. Landau

Judge
Valerie Caproni
Docket
1:19-cv-11291
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil ProcedureContract
In one sentence

In Pantaleoni v. Landau, Judge Caproni dismissed the settled case with prejudice and without costs, while permitting limited reopening applications.

Who this affects

Anthony Pantaleoni, Elaine Landau, and Richard Landau; the case was closed after the parties reported reaching an agreement in principle.

What happened

In Pantaleoni v. Landau, the parties told the court that they had reached an agreement in principle resolving all issues. The order does not describe the underlying claims or settlement terms.

The court canceled 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 all open motions. The parties could apply within 30 days 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 specific request within that period.

Judge Valerie Caproni entered the order on July 23, 2020. The order did not decide the underlying legal claims.

The detailed version

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

Case
Pantaleoni v. Landau · No. 1:19-cv-11291
Judge
Valerie Caproni
Date
July 23, 2020

Background

On July 23, 2020, the parties notified the court that they had reached an agreement in principle resolving all issues. The opinion does not identify the claims or provide the terms of the agreement.

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. The clerk was directed to terminate all open motions and close the case.

The parties could apply to reopen the case within 30 days. Such an application had to show good cause for keeping the case open despite the settlement, and an application 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 the 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 closed it. The order resolved the case based on the parties’ settlement agreement rather than deciding the underlying claims.

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.