Headley v. Universal Music Group, Inc.
- Valerie Caproni
- 1:20-cv-11120
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Headley v. Universal Music Group, Judge Caproni dismissed the settled case with prejudice and without costs.
The parties to the case. Their scheduled conferences and deadlines were canceled, the case was closed, and no party was awarded costs or attorneys’ fees.
What happened
Headley v. Universal Music Group, Inc. involved Jawara Headley and the listed defendants. The opinion does not describe the underlying claims because the parties notified the court that they had reached an agreement in principle resolving all issues.
The court canceled all scheduled conferences and other deadlines. It dismissed the case with prejudice and without costs, including attorneys’ fees, to either party, directed the clerk to terminate all open motions, and closed the case.
Judge Valerie Caproni also allowed the parties to apply within 30 days to reopen the case if they showed good cause. If they wanted the court to retain 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
- Headley v. Universal Music Group, Inc. · No. 1:20-cv-11120
- Valerie Caproni
- Apr. 14, 2021
Background
On April 13, 2021, the parties notified the court that they had reached an agreement in principle resolving all issues. The opinion does not provide the terms of that agreement or describe the underlying claims.
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 was directed to terminate all open motions and close the case.
The parties could apply within 30 days to reopen the case, but the application had to show good cause for keeping the case open despite the settlement. The order stated that a request filed after 30 days or without a showing of good cause could be denied solely on that basis. 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 a request for an order expressly retaining jurisdiction within the same 30-day period.
Effect
The order ended the case based on the parties’ settlement and did not decide the merits of the underlying dispute.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.