Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Feb. 1, 2022

John v. RAC Acceptance East, LLC

Judge
Valerie Caproni
Docket
1:21-cv-09029
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil ProcedureContract
In one sentence

In Enkofi John v. RAC Acceptance East, LLC, Judge Caproni dismissed the settled case with prejudice and without costs, while allowing limited reopening.

Who this affects

Enkofi John and the remaining parties to the case were affected by the dismissal, cancellation of deadlines, termination of open motions, and case closure.

What happened

Enkofi John v. RAC Acceptance East, LLC involved an agreement in principle among the remaining parties that resolved all issues. The order does not describe the underlying dispute or the settlement’s terms.

The court cancelled scheduled conferences and deadlines, dismissed the case with prejudice and without costs, including attorneys’ fees, terminated open motions, and closed the case. The parties could apply to reopen within 30 days by showing good cause.

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

The detailed version

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

Case
John v. RAC Acceptance East, LLC · No. 1:21-cv-09029
Judge
Valerie Caproni
Date
Feb. 1, 2022

Background

On January 28, 2022, the remaining parties notified the court that they had reached an agreement in principle resolving all issues. The order does not state the nature of the underlying claims or the terms of the agreement.

Court’s action

The court cancelled 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.

Reopening and settlement enforcement

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 order stated that a request filed after 30 days or without a showing of good cause could be denied solely on that basis.

If the parties wanted the court to retain jurisdiction—that is, authority to enforce the settlement agreement—they had to submit the settlement agreement and request an order expressly retaining jurisdiction 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.