Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Mar. 25, 2021

Savino Del Bene U.S.A., Inc. v. Commercial Lynks, Inc.

Judge
Valerie Caproni
Docket
1:20-cv-09692
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil ProcedureContract
In one sentence

In Savino Del Bene U.S.A., Inc. v. Commercial Lynks, Inc., Judge Caproni dismissed the settled case with prejudice and without costs.

Who this affects

Savino Del Bene U.S.A., Inc. and Commercial Lynks, Inc.; the case was closed after the parties reached an agreement in principle.

What happened

In Savino Del Bene U.S.A., Inc. v. Commercial Lynks, Inc., the court was told that the parties had reached an agreement in principle resolving all issues. The court canceled the remaining conferences and deadlines.

The court dismissed the case with prejudice and ordered that neither party would pay costs or attorneys’ fees. It also directed the Clerk to terminate pending motions and close the case.

Judge Valerie Caproni allowed the parties to seek reopening within 30 days if they showed good cause. If they wanted the court to keep authority to enforce their settlement, they had to submit the settlement agreement and request that authority within the same 30-day period.

The detailed version

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

Case
Savino Del Bene U.S.A., Inc. v. Commercial Lynks, Inc. · No. 1:20-cv-09692
Judge
Valerie Caproni
Date
Mar. 25, 2021

Background

The court stated that, on March 24, 2021, it was informed through the magistrate that the parties had reached an agreement in principle resolving all issues. The opinion does not describe the underlying claims or the terms of the settlement.

Ruling

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. An application had to show good cause for keeping the case open despite the settlement, and a request filed after 30 days or without a showing of good cause could be denied on that basis alone. The court also stated that, if the parties wanted it to retain jurisdiction—that is, authority—to enforce the settlement agreement, they had to submit the agreement and request an order expressly retaining that authority within the same 30-day period.

Effect

This was a procedural order ending the case based on the parties’ settlement rather than deciding the underlying legal claims. The opinion does not say whether the parties submitted a settlement agreement or whether the court retained jurisdiction to enforce it.

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.