Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Nov. 30, 2020

Stevens v. Ubiqus Reporting Inc.

Judge
Valerie Caproni
Docket
1:20-cv-05103
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil Procedure
In one sentence

In Stevens v. Ubiqus Reporting Inc., Judge Caproni dismissed the settled case with prejudice and without costs, while allowing limited reopening requests.

Who this affects

Whitney Stevens, Regina Stewart, Ubiqus Reporting Inc., Ubiqus Inc., Ubiqus SAS, and Elizabeth Cook; the order ended the case and canceled its scheduled proceedings and deadlines.

What happened

In Stevens v. Ubiqus Reporting Inc., the mediator reported that the parties had reached an agreement in principle resolving all issues after court-ordered mediation.

The court canceled all scheduled conferences and deadlines and dismissed the case with prejudice, without costs or attorneys’ fees to either side. The court also directed the clerk to close the case and terminate open motions.

Judge Valerie Caproni allowed the parties to ask within 30 days to reopen the case for good cause. They could also ask the court to keep power to enforce their settlement by submitting the agreement and a request within that same period.

The detailed version

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

Case
Stevens v. Ubiqus Reporting Inc. · No. 1:20-cv-05103
Judge
Valerie Caproni
Date
Nov. 30, 2020

Background

The court received a final report from the mediator on November 27, 2020. The report stated that the parties had reached an agreement in principle resolving all issues after court-ordered mediation.

Court’s Order

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 was directed to terminate all open motions and close the case.

Possible Reopening and Settlement Enforcement

Within 30 days, the parties could apply to reopen the case. The application had to show good cause for keeping the case open despite the settlement. The order stated that a request filed after 30 days, or without a showing of good cause, could be denied solely on that basis.

The court also stated that, if the parties wanted the court to retain jurisdiction—that is, continuing authority—to enforce their settlement agreement, they had to submit the settlement agreement and request an order expressly retaining jurisdiction 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.