Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Jan. 27, 2022

Norris v. Sharks Pool Club, LLC

Judge
Valerie Caproni
Docket
1:21-cv-08164
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil ProcedureContract
In one sentence

In Norris v. Sharks Pool Club, Judge Caproni dismissed the settled case with prejudice, without costs, and allowed a 30-day reopening application.

Who this affects

Namel Norris, Sharks Pool Club, LLC, and Grand Street Commons LLC; the case was dismissed after the parties reported an agreement in principle.

What happened

Namel Norris sued Sharks Pool Club, LLC and Grand Street Commons LLC. On January 26, 2022, the parties told the court they had reached an agreement in principle resolving all issues.

The court canceled all scheduled conferences and deadlines. It dismissed the case with prejudice and without costs, including attorneys’ fees, directed the clerk to terminate open motions, and ordered the case closed.

Judge Valerie Caproni allowed the parties to ask to reopen the case within 30 days if they showed good cause. The parties could also ask the court to retain authority to enforce their settlement by submitting the agreement and a proper request within that same period.

The detailed version

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

Case
Norris v. Sharks Pool Club, LLC · No. 1:21-cv-08164
Judge
Valerie Caproni
Date
Jan. 27, 2022

Background Namel Norris brought this case against Sharks Pool Club, LLC, doing business as Sharks Pool Club, and Grand Street Commons LLC. The opinion states that the parties notified the court on January 26, 2022, that they had reached an agreement in principle resolving all issues.

Court’s action 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.

Reopening and settlement enforcement The order allowed the parties 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 parties’ settlement. A request filed after 30 days or without a showing of good cause could be denied on that basis alone. If the parties wanted the court to retain jurisdiction—legal 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.

Disposition Judge Valerie Caproni dismissed the case with prejudice and without costs, terminated the open motions, and closed the case, subject to the order’s 30-day provisions for reopening or requesting retained 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.