Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Feb. 23, 2022

Park v. Thornton Tomasetti, Inc.

Judge
Valerie Caproni
Docket
1:21-cv-09015
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil ProcedureContract
In one sentence

In Park v. Thornton Tomasetti, Judge Caproni dismissed the settled case with prejudice and without costs, while allowing a limited reopening request.

Who this affects

Julius Park and Thornton Tomasetti, Inc.; the case was closed after their agreement in principle, subject to the order’s 30-day reopening and settlement-enforcement provisions.

What happened

Park v. Thornton Tomasetti, Inc. was dismissed after the parties told the court they had reached an agreement in principle resolving all issues.

The court canceled all scheduled conferences and deadlines, terminated all open motions, and directed the Clerk to close the case. It did not describe the underlying claims or the settlement’s terms.

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, and they could ask the court to retain authority to enforce their settlement by submitting the agreement and a specific request within that same period.

The detailed version

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

Case
Park v. Thornton Tomasetti, Inc. · No. 1:21-cv-09015
Judge
Valerie Caproni
Date
Feb. 23, 2022

Background

On February 22, 2022, the parties notified the court that they had reached an agreement in principle resolving all issues. The order does not identify the underlying claims or describe the agreement’s terms.

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 of Court was directed to terminate all open motions and close the case.

The order allowed the parties to apply to reopen the case within 30 days. Such an application had to show good cause for keeping the case open despite the settlement, and a request filed after 30 days or without a showing of good cause could be denied on that basis alone.

The parties could also ask the court to retain jurisdiction—the court’s authority—to enforce their settlement agreement. To do so, they had to submit the agreement and request an order expressly retaining jurisdiction within the same 30-day period.

Disposition

The court dismissed the case with prejudice and without costs to either party, while permitting the specified 30-day applications to reopen the case or request continuing 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.