Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Jan. 3, 2022

Lee v. JP Morgan Chase Bank N.A.

Judge
Valerie Caproni
Docket
1:21-cv-08095
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil ProcedureContract
In one sentence

Lee v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, Judge Caproni dismissed the settled case with prejudice, without costs, and closed it.

Who this affects

Semi Lee, JP Morgan Chase Bank NA, and Experian Information Solutions, Inc.

What happened

In Semi Lee v. JP Morgan Chase Bank NA and Experian Information Solutions, Inc., Lee and Experian told the court they had reached an agreement in principle resolving all issues. Lee also told the court that the action was voluntarily dismissed with prejudice as to JP Morgan Chase Bank NA.

The court canceled all scheduled conferences and deadlines. It dismissed the case with prejudice and ordered that neither party would receive costs or attorney’s fees. The Clerk was directed to terminate open 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 retain authority to enforce their settlement, they also had to submit the settlement agreement and request that authority within the same 30-day period.

The detailed version

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

Case
Lee v. JP Morgan Chase Bank N.A. · No. 1:21-cv-08095
Judge
Valerie Caproni
Date
Jan. 3, 2022

Background

On December 28, 2021, Lee and Experian Information Solutions, Inc. notified the court that they had reached an agreement in principle resolving all issues. On January 3, 2022, Lee notified the court that the action was voluntarily dismissed with prejudice as to JP Morgan Chase Bank NA.

Ruling and Disposition

The court canceled all previously scheduled conferences and other deadlines. It ordered that the case be dismissed with prejudice and without costs, including attorney’s fees, to either party. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate all open motions and close the case.

The order stated that, within 30 days, the parties could apply to reopen the case. Such an application had to show good cause for keeping the case open in light of the parties’ settlement. The order also stated 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 expressly retaining that authority within the same 30-day period.

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.