Municipal Credit Union v. CUMIS Insurance Society, Inc.
- Valerie Caproni
- 1:21-cv-02404
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
Municipal Credit Union v. CUMIS Insurance Society, Judge Caproni dismissed the settled case with prejudice and without costs, subject to possible reopening.
Municipal Credit Union, the National Credit Union Administration Board in its capacity as Municipal Credit Union’s conservator, and CUMIS Insurance Society, Inc.
What happened
Municipal Credit Union v. CUMIS Insurance Society involved Municipal Credit Union and the National Credit Union Administration Board, acting as Municipal Credit Union’s conservator, against CUMIS Insurance Society, Inc. The parties told the court they had reached an agreement in principle resolving all issues.
The court canceled all scheduled conferences and deadlines. It also ended the case with prejudice, meaning it could not ordinarily be brought again, and ordered that neither party would receive costs or attorney fees. The clerk was directed to terminate all pending motions and close the case.
Judge Valerie Caproni allowed the parties to ask to reopen the case within 30 days if they showed good cause. If they wanted the court to keep authority to enforce their settlement, they also had to submit the settlement agreement and request that the court expressly retain that authority within the same 30-day period.
The detailed version
- Municipal Credit Union v. CUMIS Insurance Society, Inc. · No. 1:21-cv-02404
- Valerie Caproni
- June 30, 2021
Background
Municipal Credit Union and the National Credit Union Administration Board, in its capacity as conservator of Municipal Credit Union, sued CUMIS Insurance Society, Inc. On June 30, 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.
Order
The court canceled all previously scheduled conferences and other deadlines. It dismissed the case with prejudice and without costs, including attorney fees, to either party. A dismissal with prejudice generally bars bringing the same case again. The clerk was directed to terminate all open motions and close the case.
Possible Reopening and Settlement Enforcement
The parties could apply to reopen the case within 30 days, but the application had to show good cause for keeping the case open despite the settlement. The court warned that a request filed after 30 days or without a showing of good cause could be denied on that basis alone. The parties could also ask the court to retain jurisdiction—that is, continuing authority—to enforce their settlement agreement. To do so, they had to submit the agreement and request an order expressly retaining jurisdiction within the same 30-day period.
Disposition
Judge Valerie Caproni dismissed the case with prejudice and without costs, terminated the open motions, and directed that the case be closed, while allowing a timely application to reopen for good cause.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.