Stillitano v. Cullen and Dykman, LLP
- Valerie Caproni
- 1:22-cv-00718
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Stillitano v. Cullen and Dykman, LLP, Judge Caproni dismissed the case with prejudice and without costs after settlement.
Justin Stillitano, Cullen and Dykman LLP, and the putative class members identified in the complaint were affected by the dismissal and closure of the case.
What happened
In Stillitano v. Cullen and Dykman, LLP, the parties told the court that they had reached an agreement in principle resolving all issues. The opinion does not describe the agreement’s terms.
The court canceled all scheduled conferences and other deadlines. It also directed the Clerk to terminate open motions and close the case.
Judge Valerie Caproni dismissed the case with prejudice and without costs, including attorneys’ fees, to either party. The parties could ask to reopen the case within 30 days by showing good cause; they could also ask the court to retain jurisdiction to enforce their settlement by submitting the agreement and a specific request within that period.
The detailed version
- Stillitano v. Cullen and Dykman, LLP · No. 1:22-cv-00718
- Valerie Caproni
- Feb. 7, 2022
Background
Justin Stillitano brought this case on behalf of himself and others similarly situated against Cullen and Dykman LLP. The opinion does not describe the underlying claims.
Settlement and Case Status
On February 4, 2022, the parties notified the court that they had reached an agreement in principle resolving all issues. The order does not provide the settlement’s terms. Based on that notification, the court canceled all previously scheduled conferences and other deadlines.
Ruling
Judge Valerie Caproni ordered that the case be dismissed 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 could apply to reopen the case within 30 days of the order. Any such application had to show good cause for keeping the case open despite the settlement, and an application filed after 30 days or without a showing of good cause could be denied on that basis alone.
The order also stated that, if the parties wanted the court to retain jurisdiction to enforce their settlement agreement, they had to submit the agreement and request an order expressly retaining jurisdiction within the same 30-day period. The opinion does not state that the court retained jurisdiction.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.