Tangle, Inc. v. Shenzhen Baliang Keji Co., LTD
- James Cott
- 1:22-cv-04242
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Tangle Inc. v. the Schedule A defendants, Judge Caproni dismissed the case with prejudice as to AME & RAY after settlement.
Tangle Inc. and AME & RAY Co LLC; the order dismissed the case with prejudice and without costs as to AME & RAY and terminated that entity from the docket.
What happened
Tangle Inc. v. the Schedule A defendants involved an agreement in principle between Tangle Inc. and AME & RAY Co LLC resolving all issues.
The court dismissed the case with prejudice and without costs, including attorneys’ fees, as to AME & RAY and directed the clerk to remove that entity from the docket. The parties could ask to reopen the case within 30 days by showing good cause.
Judge Valerie Caproni also explained that the parties could ask the court to retain jurisdiction to enforce their settlement agreement, but they had to submit the agreement and a request within the same 30-day period.
The detailed version
- Tangle, Inc. v. Shenzhen Baliang Keji Co., LTD · No. 1:22-cv-04242
- James Cott
- May 24, 2022
Background
The opinion states that Tangle Inc. and AME & RAY Co LLC 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.
Ruling
The court ordered that the case be dismissed with prejudice and without costs, including attorneys’ fees, as to AME & RAY Co LLC. The clerk was directed to terminate AME & RAY on the docket.
The order allowed the parties to apply to reopen the case within 30 days. Any application had to show good cause for keeping the case open despite the settlement. The court also stated that, if the parties wanted it to retain jurisdiction—the power to enforce the settlement agreement—they had to submit the agreement and request an order expressly retaining jurisdiction within the same 30-day period.
Effect
This order resolved Tangle Inc.’s case against AME & RAY Co LLC on the stated settlement terms, while setting a 30-day deadline for any request to reopen the case or retain jurisdiction to enforce the settlement. The opinion does not state the disposition of claims against any other Schedule A defendant.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.