Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled June 21, 2022

Swartz v. Choice Hotels International, Inc.

Judge
Valerie Caproni
Docket
1:22-cv-01486
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil ProcedureContract
In one sentence

In Swartz v. Choice Hotels, Judge Caproni dismissed the settled case with prejudice and without costs, subject to a possible 30-day reopening application.

Who this affects

Helen Swartz and Choice Hotels International, Inc.; the case was closed, and the parties were given 30 days to seek reopening or ask the court to retain jurisdiction to enforce their settlement agreement.

What happened

In Swartz v. Choice Hotels International, Inc., the parties told the court they had reached an agreement in principle resolving all issues.

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

Judge Valerie Caproni allowed the parties to apply within 30 days to reopen the case for good cause and explained how they could ask the court to retain jurisdiction to enforce their settlement agreement.

The detailed version

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

Case
Swartz v. Choice Hotels International, Inc. · No. 1:22-cv-01486
Judge
Valerie Caproni
Date
June 21, 2022

Background

On June 17, 2022, Helen Swartz and Choice Hotels International, Inc. notified the court that they had reached an agreement in principle resolving all issues. The opinion does not describe the underlying claims or the terms of the settlement.

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 case cannot ordinarily be brought again. The clerk was directed to terminate all open motions and close the case.

The court stated that, within 30 days, the parties could apply to reopen the case. Any application had to show good cause for keeping the case open despite the settlement and had to be filed within that period. The court also explained that the parties could ask it to retain jurisdiction to enforce the settlement agreement by submitting the agreement and a request for 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 it, while permitting a qualifying application to reopen within 30 days. The order did not decide the merits of the underlying dispute.

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.