Manne v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc.
- Valerie Caproni
- 1:20-cv-10617
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Manne v. Experian, Judge Caproni dismissed the settled case with prejudice and without costs.
The plaintiff and the listed defendants, whose settled case was dismissed with prejudice and without costs.
What happened
In Manne v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc., the parties told the court 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—including attorneys’ fees—and directed the clerk to close the case and terminate all open motions.
Judge Valerie Caproni allowed the parties to seek reopening within 30 days for good cause and explained how they could ask the court to retain authority to enforce their settlement.
The detailed version
- Manne v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc. · No. 1:20-cv-10617
- Valerie Caproni
- May 13, 2021
Background
On May 12, 2021, the parties notified the court that they had reached an agreement in principle resolving all issues. 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 parties were permitted to apply to reopen the case within 30 days. Any such application had to show good cause for keeping the case open despite the settlement, and a late application or one lacking a showing of good cause could be denied on that basis alone. The court also explained that, if the parties wanted the court to retain authority to enforce their settlement agreement, they had to submit the agreement and request an order retaining that authority within the same 30-day period.
Disposition
Judge Valerie Caproni dismissed the case with prejudice and without costs and closed the case. 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.