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

Abrams v. HBM Prenscia Inc.

Judge
Valerie Caproni
Docket
1:19-cv-10357
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil ProcedureContract
In one sentence

In Abrams v. HBM Prenscia, Judge Caproni dismissed the settled case with prejudice and without costs, while allowing a 30-day reopening application.

Who this affects

The parties to the case were affected: the case was dismissed with prejudice, without costs or attorneys’ fees to either party, and closed, subject to the order’s 30-day procedures for reopening or requesting retained jurisdiction to enforce the settlement.

What happened

In Abrams v. HBM Prenscia Inc., the parties told the court they had reached an agreement in principle resolving all issues.

The court canceled all scheduled conferences and deadlines, dismissed the case with prejudice and without costs or attorneys’ fees to either party, terminated open motions, and closed the case. The parties could apply to reopen the case within 30 days by showing good cause.

Judge Valerie Caproni also stated that the court could retain jurisdiction to enforce the settlement if the parties timely submitted their agreement and requested an order retaining jurisdiction.

The detailed version

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

Case
Abrams v. HBM Prenscia Inc. · No. 1:19-cv-10357
Judge
Valerie Caproni
Date
Dec. 6, 2020

Background

The parties notified the court on December 3, 2020, that they had reached an agreement in principle resolving all issues. The opinion does not describe the underlying claims or the settlement’s terms.

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

The parties could apply to reopen the case within 30 days of the order. Any such application had to show good cause for keeping the case open despite the settlement. The court stated that it could deny an application filed after 30 days or filed without a showing of good cause solely on that basis.

The court also stated that, if the parties wanted it to retain jurisdiction—the authority to enforce the settlement agreement—they had to submit the settlement agreement and request an order expressly retaining jurisdiction within the same 30-day period.

Disposition

Judge Valerie Caproni dismissed the case with prejudice and without costs, terminated the open motions, and directed that the case be closed. The order permitted a timely reopening application meeting the stated requirements and described the steps for requesting retained jurisdiction to enforce the settlement.

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.