Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Sept. 28, 2020

Plunkett v. Barclays Bank PLC

Judge
Valerie Caproni
Docket
1:20-cv-05242
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil ProcedureContract
In one sentence

In Plunkett v. Barclays Bank PLC, Judge Caproni dismissed the settled case with prejudice and without costs.

Who this affects

The plaintiff, André Plunkett, and defendants Barclays Bank PLC, Experian Information Solutions, Inc., TransUnion, LLC, and Equifax Information Services, LLC.

What happened

In Plunkett v. Barclays Bank PLC, the plaintiff and defendants told the court they had reached an agreement in principle resolving all issues.

The court cancelled all scheduled conferences and deadlines. It also 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. The parties could ask to reopen the case within 30 days by showing good cause, and they could ask the court to retain authority to enforce their settlement by submitting the agreement and a separate request within that period.

The detailed version

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

Case
Plunkett v. Barclays Bank PLC · No. 1:20-cv-05242
Judge
Valerie Caproni
Date
Sept. 28, 2020

Background

André Plunkett sued Barclays Bank PLC, Experian Information Solutions, Inc., TransUnion, LLC, and Equifax Information Services, LLC. The opinion states that on September 25, 2020, the parties notified the court that they had reached an agreement in principle resolving all issues.

Order

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 parties could 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 a request filed after 30 days or 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—continuing 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 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.