The Travelers Indemnity Company v. Wesco Insurance Company
- Valerie Caproni
- 1:20-cv-09755
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Travelers v. Wesco, Judge Caproni dismissed the settled case with prejudice and without costs.
The Travelers Indemnity Company and Wesco Insurance Company.
What happened
The Travelers Indemnity Company v. Wesco Insurance Company involved an agreement in principle resolving all issues. The opinion does not describe the underlying dispute.
The court canceled all scheduled conferences and deadlines, dismissed the case with prejudice and without costs, terminated pending motions, and closed the case.
Judge Valerie Caproni also allowed the parties to seek reopening within 30 days for good cause and required them to submit their settlement agreement and request any continuing enforcement jurisdiction within that period.
The detailed version
- The Travelers Indemnity Company v. Wesco Insurance Company · No. 1:20-cv-09755
- Valerie Caproni
- Jan. 6, 2021
Background
The parties notified the court that they had reached an agreement in principle resolving all issues. The opinion does not provide details about the underlying insurance dispute or the settlement 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 was directed to terminate all open motions and close the case.
The parties could apply to reopen the case within 30 days if they showed good cause for keeping it 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 to enforce the settlement agreement, they had to submit the agreement and request an order expressly retaining that jurisdiction within the same 30-day period.
Disposition
Judge Valerie Caproni dismissed the case with prejudice and without costs, terminated the open motions, and closed the case. The order did not decide the underlying dispute on its merits.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.