Khudzina v. West 63 Empire Associates LLC d/b/a Empire Hotel
- Valerie Caproni
- 1:20-cv-04408
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Khudzina v. West 63 Empire Associates LLC, Judge Caproni dismissed the settled case with prejudice and without costs.
The plaintiff and all defendants. Their case was dismissed with prejudice and without costs, subject to the order’s 30-day provisions for seeking reopening or requesting retained authority to enforce the settlement.
What happened
Khudzina v. West 63 Empire Associates LLC was resolved after the parties reached an agreement in principle following court-ordered mediation.
The court canceled all scheduled conferences and other deadlines, terminated all open motions, and directed the Clerk to close the case.
Judge Caproni dismissed the case with prejudice and without costs, including attorneys’ fees, while allowing the parties 30 days to seek reopening for good cause or request that the court retain authority to enforce their settlement.
The detailed version
- Khudzina v. West 63 Empire Associates LLC d/b/a Empire Hotel · No. 1:20-cv-04408
- Valerie Caproni
- Mar. 26, 2021
Background
The court received a mediator’s final report stating that the parties reached an agreement in principle resolving all issues after court-ordered mediation.
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 were allowed to apply within 30 days to reopen the case. Any such application had to show good cause for keeping the case open in light of the settlement. The order also stated that, if the parties wanted the court 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.
Disposition
The case was dismissed with prejudice and without costs, and the case was closed. The order did not decide the underlying claims on their merits.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.