Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Jan. 19, 2022

Norris v. Dumpling Hut Inc.

Judge
Valerie Caproni
Docket
1:21-cv-07447
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil ProcedureContract
In one sentence

In Norris v. Dumpling Hut, Judge Caproni dismissed the settled case with prejudice and without costs, subject to a 30-day reopening procedure.

Who this affects

Namel Norris, Dumpling Hut Inc., and 289 Realty Corp.; the case was closed after the parties reported an agreement in principle.

What happened

In Namel Norris v. Dumpling Hut Inc., the parties told the court they had reached an agreement in principle resolving all issues.

The court canceled scheduled conferences and deadlines, dismissed the case with prejudice and without costs, including attorneys’ fees, and directed the clerk to close the case and terminate pending motions.

Judge Valerie Caproni allowed the parties 30 days to seek reopening for good cause and explained how they could ask the court to retain authority to enforce their settlement agreement.

The detailed version

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

Case
Norris v. Dumpling Hut Inc. · No. 1:21-cv-07447
Judge
Valerie Caproni
Date
Jan. 19, 2022

Background

On January 18, 2022, the parties notified the court that they had reached an agreement in principle resolving all issues. The order does not describe the settlement’s terms or the underlying claims.

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 permitted to apply to reopen the case within 30 days. Any such application had to show good cause for keeping the case open in light of the settlement. The order stated that a request filed after 30 days or without a showing of good cause could be denied solely on that basis.

The order also explained that, if the parties wanted the court to retain jurisdiction—meaning authority to enforce the 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 and closed the case, while allowing a 30-day procedure for seeking reopening or requesting that the court retain authority to enforce the settlement.

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.