Andrews v. Green
- Valerie Caproni
- 1:19-cv-05622
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
Andrews v. Green ended after settlement; Judge Caproni dismissed the case with prejudice and without costs.
Michael D. Andrews and Theresa Green, along with the other defendants, were affected by the dismissal and settlement-related directives.
What happened
In Andrews v. Green, the parties told the court they had reached an agreement in principle resolving all issues. The court canceled the scheduled conferences and deadlines.
The court dismissed the case with prejudice and ordered that neither party pay costs or attorneys’ fees. It also directed the clerk to terminate open motions and close the case.
Within 30 days, the parties could ask to reopen the case for good cause or ask the court to retain jurisdiction to enforce their settlement agreement. Judge Valerie Caproni also directed the clerk to mail the order to the pro se plaintiff.
The detailed version
- Andrews v. Green · No. 1:19-cv-05622
- Valerie Caproni
- June 4, 2021
Background
On June 1, 2021, the parties notified the court that they had reached an agreement in principle resolving all issues. The opinion does not describe the terms of that agreement.
Court’s 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 was directed to terminate all open motions and close the case.
The parties were allowed to 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, and the court stated that a late application or one lacking a showing of good cause could be denied on that basis alone.
The court also stated that, if the parties wanted it to retain jurisdiction—meaning authority to enforce the settlement agreement—they had to submit the settlement agreement and request an order expressly retaining that authority within the same 30-day period. The clerk was directed to mail a copy of the order to the pro se plaintiff, meaning the plaintiff who was not represented by a lawyer.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.