Juscinska v. Drink This, LLC
- Valerie Caproni
- 1:22-cv-00413
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Juscinska v. Drink This, LLC, Judge Caproni dismissed the settled case with prejudice and without costs, allowing a 30-day reopening request.
Natalia Juscinska, Drink This, LLC, and MacDougal Associates LLC were affected by the dismissal, case closure, and conditions for seeking reopening or continued court enforcement of the settlement.
What happened
In Juscinska v. Drink This, LLC, the parties told the court that they had reached an agreement in principle resolving all issues. The opinion does not provide the agreement’s terms.
The court canceled all scheduled conferences and deadlines, dismissed the case with prejudice and without costs, including attorneys’ fees, terminated open motions, and closed the case. The parties could ask to reopen the case within 30 days by showing good cause. They could also ask the court to retain authority to enforce their settlement by filing the settlement agreement and a request within that same 30-day period.
Judge Valerie Caproni issued the order on May 12, 2022.
The detailed version
- Juscinska v. Drink This, LLC · No. 1:22-cv-00413
- Valerie Caproni
- May 12, 2022
Background
Natalia Juscinska sued Drink This, LLC and MacDougal Associates LLC. The parties notified the court that they had reached an agreement in principle resolving all issues. The order does not describe the claims or 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 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 a request filed after 30 days or without a showing of good cause could be denied on that basis alone. If the parties wanted the court to retain jurisdiction—that is, authority—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
The case was dismissed with prejudice and without costs, and the case was closed. The order did not decide the underlying claims on their merits.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.