Girotto v. Paige, LLC
- Valerie Caproni
- 1:21-cv-00420
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Girotto v. Paige, Judge Caproni dismissed the settled case with prejudice and without costs, allowing a 30-day application to reopen.
Luigi Girotto and the defendants, Paige, LLC and 411-13 Bleecker Street Realty Corp.; the case was dismissed with prejudice, subject to the order’s 30-day procedures for seeking reopening or requesting retained jurisdiction to enforce the settlement.
What happened
In Girotto v. Paige, the parties told the court that they had reached an agreement in principle resolving all issues.
The court canceled all scheduled conferences and deadlines, dismissed the case with prejudice and without costs, including attorneys’ fees, and directed the clerk to close the case.
Judge Caproni allowed the parties 30 days to seek reopening for good cause and to ask the court to retain jurisdiction to enforce their settlement if they submitted the required documents.
The detailed version
- Girotto v. Paige, LLC · No. 1:21-cv-00420
- Valerie Caproni
- Apr. 7, 2021
Background
The parties notified the court that they had reached an agreement in principle resolving all issues in the case. The opinion does not state the terms of that agreement.
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 was directed to terminate all open motions and close the case.
The court stated that the parties could apply to reopen the case within 30 days. Such an application had to show good cause for keeping the case open in light of the settlement. The court also stated that, if the parties wanted it to retain jurisdiction—the authority to oversee enforcement—to enforce the settlement agreement, they had to submit the agreement and request an order expressly retaining jurisdiction within the same 30-day period.
Disposition
Judge Valerie Caproni entered the dismissal and related directives. The order did not decide the underlying claims on their merits; it resolved the case based on the parties’ settlement.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.