Trustees of the 1199SEIU Home Care Employees Pension Fund v. Bronxwood Home For…
Trustees of the 1199SEIU Home Care Employees Pension Fund v. Bronxwood Home For the Aged, Inc.
- Valerie Caproni
- 1:20-cv-10318
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
Judge Caproni dismissed Trustees of the 1199SEIU Home Care Employees Pension Fund v. Bronxwood with prejudice after the parties reached a settlement.
The plaintiff Trustees of the 1199SEIU Home Care Employees Pension Fund and the defendant Bronxwood Home For the Aged, Inc. were affected by the dismissal, cancellation of deadlines, termination of motions, and closure of the case.
What happened
In Trustees of the 1199SEIU Home Care Employees Pension Fund v. Bronxwood Home for the Aged, Inc., the parties 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 or attorneys’ fees to either party, terminated open motions, and closed the case. The parties could ask to reopen it within 30 days by showing good cause.
Judge Valerie Caproni also said the court could retain authority to enforce the settlement only if the parties timely submitted the agreement and requested an order retaining that authority.
The detailed version
- Trustees of the 1199SEIU Home Care Employees Pension Fund v. Bronxwood Home For… · No. 1:20-cv-10318
- Valerie Caproni
- Jan. 25, 2021
Background
The plaintiff was Trustees of the 1199SEIU Home Care Employees Pension Fund. The defendant was Bronxwood Home For the Aged, Inc., doing business as Bronxwood Home for the Aged, Inc. Licensed Home Care Services Agency. On January 22, 2021, the parties notified the court that they had reached an agreement in principle resolving all issues.
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 and had to be filed within that 30-day period. The order stated that a late request or one without a showing of good cause could be denied on that basis alone.
Settlement Enforcement
If the parties wanted the court to retain jurisdiction—the court’s authority—to enforce their settlement agreement, they had to submit the settlement agreement and request an order expressly retaining that authority within the same 30-day period.
Judge
Judge Valerie Caproni entered the order and closed the case.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.