Cuahutle de Gabriel v. Bocca Bliss 725 Third Avenue Corp.
- Valerie Caproni
- 1:18-cv-10686
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Cuahutle de Gabriel v. Bocca Bliss, Judge Caproni dismissed the settled case with prejudice and without costs, allowing reopening requests within 30 days.
The plaintiffs and defendants were affected: the case was dismissed with prejudice, without costs or attorneys’ fees to either side, scheduled proceedings were cancelled, open motions were terminated, and the case was closed. The parties retained a 30-day opportunity to seek reopening or ask the court to retain jurisdiction to enforce their settlement agreement.
What happened
Cuahutle de Gabriel v. Bocca Bliss involved plaintiffs Rafael Cuahutle de Gabriel and Javier Calleja Garcia and several defendants. The parties told the court that they had reached an agreement in principle resolving all issues.
The court cancelled all scheduled conferences and deadlines. It also ended the case and directed the clerk to terminate all open motions and close the case.
Judge Valerie Caproni dismissed the case with prejudice and without costs, including attorneys’ fees, to either side. The parties could ask to reopen the case within 30 days if they showed 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.
The detailed version
- Cuahutle de Gabriel v. Bocca Bliss 725 Third Avenue Corp. · No. 1:18-cv-10686
- Valerie Caproni
- Sept. 11, 2020
Background
The plaintiffs were Rafael Cuahutle de Gabriel and Javier Calleja Garcia, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated. The defendants were Bocca Bliss 725 Third Avenue Corp., Sara Kitchen, Corp., CPG Restaurant Group, Inc., Abraham Choi, Byung J Cho, Carl Genova (also known as Carmelo), and Elio Doe. The opinion states that, on September 11, 2020, the parties notified the court that they had reached an agreement in principle resolving all issues.
Court’s action
The court cancelled 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 order allowed the parties to apply to reopen the case within 30 days. Such an application had to show good cause for keeping the case open despite the parties’ settlement, and a late request or one without a showing of good cause could be denied on that basis alone. The order also stated that, if the parties wanted the court to retain jurisdiction—that is, continuing authority—to enforce their 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.