Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Nov. 5, 2020

J.V. v. Acer America Corporation

Judge
Valerie Caproni
Docket
1:19-cv-00804
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil ProcedureContract
In one sentence

In J.V. v. Acer America Corporation, Judge Caproni dismissed the settled case with prejudice and without costs, subject to limited reopening procedures.

Who this affects

The order affected J.V.; Miguel Vasquez-Castro, identified as J.V.’s father and natural guardian and as an individual plaintiff; and Acer America Corporation, Micro Electronics, Inc., Micro Center, Inc., and Wistron Infocomm Technology Corporation.

What happened

J.V. v. Acer America Corporation involved J.V., Miguel Vasquez-Castro, and four corporate defendants. The parties 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 and without costs, including attorneys’ fees, and directed the clerk to close the case and terminate pending motions.

Judge Valerie Caproni allowed the parties 30 days to seek reopening for good cause or to ask the court to retain jurisdiction to enforce their settlement agreement, subject to specified filing requirements.

The detailed version

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

Case
J.V. v. Acer America Corporation · No. 1:19-cv-00804
Judge
Valerie Caproni
Date
Nov. 5, 2020

Background

On November 2, 2020, the parties notified the court that they had reached an agreement in principle resolving all issues. The opinion does not describe the underlying claims or the settlement’s terms.

Court’s Actions

The court ordered that all previously scheduled conferences and other deadlines were canceled. 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.

Possible Reopening or Retained Jurisdiction

The parties could apply to reopen the case within 30 days of the order. Such an application had to show good cause for keeping the case open despite the settlement, and a late application or one lacking 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 to enforce the settlement agreement, they had to submit the agreement and request an order expressly retaining jurisdiction within the same 30-day period, following the court’s stated filing requirements.

Disposition

The court dismissed the case with prejudice and without costs, canceled the scheduled proceedings and deadlines, terminated the open motions, and closed the case. Judge Valerie Caproni signed the order.

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.