Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled June 23, 2021

4 Wallebitda, LLC v. Shendell

Judge
Valerie Caproni
Docket
1:20-cv-05700
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil ProcedureContract
In one sentence

4 Wallebitda v. Shendell: Judge Caproni dismissed the settled case with prejudice, without costs or fees, and closed it.

Who this affects

The plaintiffs—4 Wallebitda, LLC, doing business as The Ainsworth, and John Sullivan—and the defendants named in the caption were affected by the dismissal and settlement-related procedures.

What happened

In 4 Wallebitda, LLC v. Shendell, the court was notified that the parties had reached an agreement on all issues through a magistrate judge.

The court cancelled scheduled conferences and deadlines, dismissed the case with prejudice, and ordered that neither party would pay costs or attorneys’ fees. It also directed the Clerk to terminate pending motions and close the case.

Judge Valerie Caproni allowed the parties 30 days to seek reopening for good cause. They could also ask the court to retain jurisdiction to enforce their settlement by submitting the agreement and a specific request within that period.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
4 Wallebitda, LLC v. Shendell · No. 1:20-cv-05700
Judge
Valerie Caproni
Date
June 23, 2021

Background

The court stated that, on June 22, 2021, it was notified that an agreement had been reached on all issues through a magistrate judge. The opinion does not describe the settlement’s terms.

Order

The court cancelled all previously scheduled conferences and other deadlines. It dismissed the case with prejudice and without costs, including attorneys’ fees, to either party. The Clerk of Court 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 application had to show good cause for keeping the case open in light of the settlement, and the court stated that an untimely application or one lacking a showing of good cause could be denied on that basis. The court also stated that, if the parties wanted it to retain jurisdiction 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

The case was dismissed with prejudice, without costs or attorneys’ fees to either party, and closed. The order did not decide the underlying claims on their merits.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.