Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Nov. 6, 2020

Gomes v. Relay Graduate School of Education

Judge
Valerie Caproni
Docket
1:20-cv-05977
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil ProcedureContract
In one sentence

In Gomes v. Relay Graduate School of Education, Judge Caproni dismissed the settled case with prejudice and without costs.

Who this affects

Jennifer Gomes and the defendants—Relay Graduate School of Education, Mayme Hostetter, Kelly Morris, and Pamela Inbaskaren—were affected because the case was dismissed with prejudice, without costs, and closed after the parties reported an agreement in principle.

What happened

In Gomes v. Relay Graduate School of Education, Jennifer Gomes and the defendants told the court 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, ended all open motions, and closed the case. The parties had 30 days to ask to reopen the case for good cause.

Judge Valerie Caproni also explained that the court could retain authority to enforce the settlement only if the parties timely submitted the agreement and requested that authority.

The detailed version

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

Case
Gomes v. Relay Graduate School of Education · No. 1:20-cv-05977
Judge
Valerie Caproni
Date
Nov. 6, 2020

Background

Jennifer Gomes sued Relay Graduate School of Education and Mayme Hostetter, Kelly Morris, and Pamela Inbaskaren individually. The parties notified the court that they had reached an agreement in principle resolving all issues.

Court’s action

Judge Valerie Caproni ordered that all previously scheduled conferences and other deadlines be canceled. The court dismissed the case with prejudice and without costs, including attorneys’ fees, to either party. The Clerk of Court 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. 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 on that basis alone.

If the parties wanted the court to retain jurisdiction—meaning 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.

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.