Apple Valley Supermarket Inc. v. United States Department of Agriculture Food…
Apple Valley Supermarket Inc. v. United States Department of Agriculture Food and Nutrition Service
- Valerie Caproni
- 1:20-cv-06450
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Apple Valley Supermarkets v. United States, Judge Caproni dismissed the settled case with prejudice and without costs.
Apple Valley Supermarkets Inc., Stephanie Gonzalez, and the defendants were affected by the dismissal, cancellation of deadlines, termination of open motions, and closure of the case. The parties retained the stated 30-day opportunity to seek reopening or request that the court retain jurisdiction to enforce their settlement agreement.
What happened
Apple Valley Supermarkets Inc. v. United States Department of Agriculture Food and Nutrition Service involved an agreement in principle between the parties that resolved all issues.
The court canceled scheduled conferences and deadlines, dismissed the case with prejudice and without costs, including attorneys’ fees, terminated open motions, and closed the case.
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.
The detailed version
- Apple Valley Supermarket Inc. v. United States Department of Agriculture Food… · No. 1:20-cv-06450
- Valerie Caproni
- Nov. 10, 2020
Background
On November 9, 2020, the parties informed the court that they had reached an agreement in principle resolving all issues.
Ruling
The court canceled all previously scheduled conferences and other deadlines. It 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 court stated that, within 30 days, the parties could apply to reopen the case by showing good cause for keeping it open despite their settlement. The court also stated that, within the same 30-day period, the parties could ask the court to retain jurisdiction—the authority to oversee enforcement—to enforce their settlement agreement, but they would need to submit the agreement and request an order expressly retaining jurisdiction. The opinion did not describe the agreement’s terms.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.