Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Feb. 11, 2021

Ebed v. Mount Sinai St. Luke's Hospital

Judge
Valerie Caproni
Docket
1:19-cv-11068
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil ProcedureContract
In one sentence

In Ebed v. Mount Sinai St. Luke’s Hospital, Judge Caproni dismissed the settled case with prejudice and without costs.

Who this affects

Fahrueldin Ebed and defendants Mount Sinai St. Luke’s Hospital, Rightsourcing, Inc., and AMN Allied Services, LLC doing business as Med Travelers; the case was dismissed and closed after the parties reached an agreement in principle.

What happened

In Ebed v. Mount Sinai St. Luke’s Hospital, the parties notified the court that 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, terminated all open motions, and directed the Clerk to close the case.

Judge Valerie Caproni allowed the parties to seek reopening within 30 days for good cause and explained that they could ask the court to retain jurisdiction to enforce their settlement by submitting the agreement and a request within that period.

The detailed version

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

Case
Ebed v. Mount Sinai St. Luke's Hospital · No. 1:19-cv-11068
Judge
Valerie Caproni
Date
Feb. 11, 2021

Background

The court was informed that Fahrueldin Ebed and defendants Mount Sinai St. Luke’s Hospital, Rightsourcing, Inc., and AMN Allied Services, LLC doing business as Med Travelers, had reached an agreement in principle resolving all issues. The opinion does not describe the underlying claims or the settlement’s terms.

Court’s Action

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.

Possible Reopening and Enforcement

The parties could apply to reopen the case within 30 days of the order. The application had to show good cause for keeping the case open in light of the settlement, and a late application or one without a showing of good cause could be denied on that basis. The court also stated that, 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 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.