Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Mar. 18, 2022

Velasquez v. MC Optical Corp.

Judge
Valerie Caproni
Docket
1:21-cv-07825
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil ProcedureContract
In one sentence

Velasquez v. MC Optical Corp.: Judge Caproni dismissed the settled case with prejudice and without costs, while allowing limited reopening requests.

Who this affects

Ricardo Velasquez, MC Optical Corp. doing business as Manny’s Optical, and First Sigma DE LLC; the case was closed under the parties’ settlement.

What happened

In Velasquez v. MC Optical Corp., the parties told the court they had reached an agreement in principle resolving all issues.

The court cancelled all scheduled conferences and other deadlines, terminated all open motions, and directed the clerk to close the case.

Judge Caproni dismissed the case with prejudice and without costs, including attorneys’ fees, but allowed the parties to seek reopening within 30 days for good cause or to request retained jurisdiction to enforce their settlement.

The detailed version

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

Case
Velasquez v. MC Optical Corp. · No. 1:21-cv-07825
Judge
Valerie Caproni
Date
Mar. 18, 2022

Background

On March 16, 2022, the parties notified the court that they had reached an agreement in principle resolving all issues. The opinion does not describe the underlying claims or the settlement’s terms.

Court’s action

The court cancelled all previously scheduled conferences and other deadlines. It directed the Clerk of Court to terminate all open motions and close the case.

Disposition

The court dismissed the case with prejudice and without costs, including attorneys’ fees, to either party. The parties could apply to reopen the case within 30 days, but the application had to show good cause for keeping the case open in light of the settlement. The court stated that an application filed after 30 days or without a showing of good cause could be denied solely on that basis.

The court also explained that, if the parties wanted the court to retain jurisdiction—meaning authority to enforce—the settlement agreement, they had to submit the agreement and request an order expressly retaining that authority 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.