Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Mar. 9, 2022

Khan v. Woods

Judge
Valerie Caproni
Docket
1:21-cv-00493
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil ProcedureContract
In one sentence

In Khan v. Woods, Judge Caproni dismissed the settled case with prejudice and without costs, while allowing a 30-day reopening application.

Who this affects

Jamil Khan, Michael L. Woods, and Escot Bus Lines LLC; the case was dismissed based on the parties’ agreement in principle.

What happened

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

Judge Caproni canceled all scheduled conferences and deadlines and dismissed the case with prejudice, without costs or attorneys’ fees to either party. The court also directed the clerk to terminate open motions and close the case.

Judge Valerie Caproni allowed the parties to apply within 30 days to reopen the case if they showed 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

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

Case
Khan v. Woods · No. 1:21-cv-00493
Judge
Valerie Caproni
Date
Mar. 9, 2022

Background

On March 8, 2022, Jamil Khan and defendants Michael L. Woods and Escot Bus Lines LLC notified the court that they had reached an agreement in principle resolving all issues. The opinion does not state 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 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 stated that a request filed after 30 days, or filed without a showing of good cause, could be denied solely on that basis.

The court also explained that, if the parties wanted it to retain jurisdiction—the authority to oversee enforcement—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 entered the dismissal and directed that the case be closed. The order resolved the case through the parties’ settlement and did not decide the underlying claims on their merits.

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.