Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Oct. 16, 2020

Morales v. C R Bard Incorporated

Judge
Valerie Caproni
Docket
1:19-cv-09873
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil Procedure
In one sentence

In Morales v. Bard, Judge Caproni dismissed the case with prejudice after the parties reported an agreement resolving all issues.

Who this affects

Ivette Morales and defendants C R Bard Incorporated and Bard Peripheral Vascular Incorporated; the case was closed, subject to the stated 120-day procedures for reopening or retaining jurisdiction to enforce the settlement.

What happened

In Morales v. C R Bard Incorporated, Ivette Morales and the defendants told the court that they had reached an agreement in principle resolving all issues.

The court canceled scheduled conferences and deadlines, dismissed the case with prejudice without costs or attorneys’ fees to either side, terminated open motions, and closed the case. The parties may ask to reopen it within 120 days if they show good cause. They may also ask the court to retain power to enforce their settlement by submitting the agreement and a separate request within that period.

Judge Valerie Caproni issued the order on October 16, 2020. The order does not decide the underlying claims.

The detailed version

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

Case
Morales v. C R Bard Incorporated · No. 1:19-cv-09873
Judge
Valerie Caproni
Date
Oct. 16, 2020

Background

On October 15, 2020, the parties notified the court that they had reached an agreement in principle resolving all issues. The opinion does not identify the underlying claims.

Court’s Action

The court ordered that all previously scheduled conferences and other deadlines be canceled. It further ordered that the case be dismissed 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 permits the parties to apply to reopen the case within 120 days. Any such application must show good cause for keeping the case open in light of the parties’ settlement. A request filed after 120 days, or without a showing of good cause, may be denied on that basis alone.

The parties may also ask the court to retain jurisdiction—the court’s authority—to enforce their settlement agreement. To do so, they must submit the agreement under Rule 6.A of the court’s Individual Practices and request an order expressly retaining jurisdiction, both within the same 120-day period.

Classification

This is a procedural order. The court dismissed the case based on the parties’ agreement and did not decide the underlying legal 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.