Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Jan. 28, 2022

Satterwhite v. Audicus, Inc.

Judge
Valerie Caproni
Docket
1:21-cv-09250
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil ProcedureContract
In one sentence

In Satterwhite v. Audicus, Judge Caproni dismissed the settled case with prejudice and no costs or attorneys’ fees.

Who this affects

Alan V. Satterwhite and Audicus, Inc.; the order also governed the parties’ ability to reopen the case or seek continuing court authority to enforce their settlement.

What happened

In Satterwhite v. Audicus, Inc., the parties told the court they had reached an agreement in principle resolving all issues. The opinion does not describe the settlement’s terms.

The court canceled scheduled conferences and deadlines, dismissed the case with prejudice, ordered that neither party would pay costs or attorneys’ fees, terminated open motions, and closed the case. The parties could ask to reopen it within 30 days if they showed good cause.

Judge Valerie Caproni also explained that the parties could ask the court to retain jurisdiction to enforce their settlement by submitting the agreement and a request within the same 30-day period.

The detailed version

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

Case
Satterwhite v. Audicus, Inc. · No. 1:21-cv-09250
Judge
Valerie Caproni
Date
Jan. 28, 2022

Background

On January 27, 2022, the parties notified the court that they had reached an agreement in principle resolving all issues. The opinion does not provide 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 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 such application had to show good cause for keeping the case open despite the settlement. The court warned that a late application or one lacking a showing of good cause could be denied solely on that basis.

The court also stated that, if the parties wanted the court to retain jurisdiction—continuing authority—to enforce their settlement agreement, 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 or attorneys’ fees to either party. The order did not decide the underlying claims on their merits; it ended the case based on the parties’ agreement in principle.

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.