Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Sept. 4, 2020

d'Amico Dry d.a.c. v. McInnis Cement, Inc.

Judge
Valerie Caproni
Docket
1:20-cv-03731
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil ProcedureContract
In one sentence

In d'Amico Dry v. McInnis Cement, Judge Caproni dismissed the settled case with prejudice and without costs, while allowing limited reopening requests.

Who this affects

d'Amico Dry d.a.c. and McInnis Cement Inc.; the case was dismissed after the parties reported reaching an agreement in principle.

What happened

In d'Amico Dry d.a.c. v. McInnis Cement, Inc., the parties told the court they had reached an agreement in principle resolving all issues.

The court cancelled scheduled conferences and deadlines, dismissed the case with prejudice and without costs or attorney fees, terminated open motions, and closed the case.

Judge Valerie Caproni allowed either party to seek reopening within 30 days by showing good cause; the parties also had 30 days to ask the court to retain authority to enforce their settlement.

The detailed version

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

Case
d'Amico Dry d.a.c. v. McInnis Cement, Inc. · No. 1:20-cv-03731
Judge
Valerie Caproni
Date
Sept. 4, 2020

Background

On September 3, 2020, the parties notified the court that they had reached an agreement in principle resolving all issues.

Court's Order

The court cancelled all previously scheduled conferences and other deadlines. It dismissed the case with prejudice and without costs, including attorney fees, to either party. The clerk was directed to terminate all open motions and close the case.

The parties were permitted 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. The court stated that an application filed after 30 days or without a showing of good cause could be denied solely on that basis.

If the parties wanted the court to retain jurisdiction—the authority to enforce their settlement agreement—they had to submit the settlement agreement and request an order expressly retaining that authority within the same 30-day period. The order cited Rule 6.A of the court's Individual Practices and Hendrickson v. United States, 791 F.3d 354 (2d Cir. 2015).

Disposition

The court dismissed the case with prejudice and without costs, terminated the open motions, and closed the case. It also set the 30-day procedures for seeking reopening or asking the court to retain jurisdiction to enforce the settlement.

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.