Kissel v. United Health Care Insurance Company
Ilan Kissel v. United Health Care Insurance Company, Inc., D/B/A United Healthcare Oxford
- Valerie Caproni
- 1:20-cv-05861
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Ilan Kissel v. Dr. Scott O. Kissel P.C. Health Plan, Judge Caproni dismissed the settled case with prejudice and without costs.
Ilan Kissel and the two defendants were affected: the settled case was dismissed with prejudice, without costs or attorneys’ fees to either party, and closed.
What happened
Ilan Kissel v. Dr. Scott O. Kissel P.C. Health Plan and United Health Care Insurance Company, Inc. involved an agreement in principle that resolved all issues between the parties.
The court canceled all scheduled conferences and other deadlines, terminated all open motions, and closed the case. It also stated that the parties could apply to reopen the case within 30 days if they showed good cause.
Judge Valerie Caproni dismissed the case with prejudice and without costs, including attorneys’ fees, to either party. The parties could ask the court to retain authority to enforce their settlement only by submitting the settlement agreement and a request within the same 30-day period.
The detailed version
- Kissel v. United Health Care Insurance Company · No. 1:20-cv-05861
- Valerie Caproni
- June 1, 2021
Background
On May 28, 2021, the parties notified the court that they had reached an agreement in principle resolving all issues. The opinion does not describe the underlying claims or the settlement’s terms.
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 order allowed the parties to apply to reopen the case within 30 days. Such an application had to show good cause for keeping the case open despite the settlement, and a late application or one without a showing of good cause could be denied on that basis.
The order also explained that, if the parties wanted the court to retain jurisdiction—legal authority—to enforce their settlement agreement, they had to submit the agreement and request an order expressly retaining that authority within the same 30-day period.
Disposition
Judge Valerie Caproni dismissed the case with prejudice and without costs to either party. The order did not decide the underlying claims on their merits; it ended the case after the parties reported reaching a settlement agreement in principle.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.