Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Apr. 19, 2022

BJ66, LLC v. KOGV, LLC

Judge
Valerie Caproni
Docket
1:22-cv-00617
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil ProcedureContract
In one sentence

In BJ66, LLC v. KOGV, LLC, Judge Caproni dismissed the settled case with prejudice and without costs.

Who this affects

BJ66, LLC, KOGV, LLC, Giselle Deiaco, Roberto Deiaco, and John Doe were affected by the dismissal, closure of the case, and 30-day procedures concerning reopening or enforcement of the settlement.

What happened

BJ66, LLC v. KOGV, LLC involved a dispute that the parties told the court they had agreed in principle to resolve. The opinion does not describe the underlying claims.

The court canceled all scheduled conferences and deadlines, dismissed the case with prejudice and without costs—including attorneys’ fees—and directed the clerk to close the case and terminate open motions.

Judge Valerie Caproni allowed the parties 30 days to seek reopening for good cause or to ask the court to retain jurisdiction to enforce their settlement agreement, subject to specified filing requirements.

The detailed version

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

Case
BJ66, LLC v. KOGV, LLC · No. 1:22-cv-00617
Judge
Valerie Caproni
Date
Apr. 19, 2022

Background

BJ66, LLC was the plaintiff, and KOGV, LLC, Giselle Deiaco, Roberto Deiaco, and John Doe were the defendants. The opinion does not describe the underlying claims. On April 19, 2022, the parties notified the court that they had reached an agreement in principle resolving all issues.

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. “With prejudice” means the dismissal generally bars refiling the dismissed claims. The clerk was directed to terminate all open motions and close the case.

Possible reopening and settlement enforcement

The parties were permitted to apply within 30 days to reopen the case. Any application had to show good cause for keeping the case open despite the settlement, and a late application or one lacking a showing of good cause could be denied on that basis alone. If the parties wanted the court to retain jurisdiction to enforce the settlement agreement, they also had to submit the agreement and request an order expressly retaining jurisdiction within the same 30-day period.

Disposition

Judge Valerie Caproni dismissed the case with prejudice and without costs and closed the case, while allowing the limited 30-day applications described in the order.

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.