Marjan International Corp. v. Sara's Oriental Rugs, LLC
- Valerie Caproni
- 1:22-cv-03135
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Marjan International Corp. v. Sara’s Oriental Rugs, Judge Caproni dismissed the settled case with prejudice and without costs.
Marjan International Corp., Sara’s Oriental Rugs LLC, Sam Ramazani, and Sara Ramazani were affected by the dismissal, cancellation of deadlines, case closure, and procedures for possible reopening or enforcement of the settlement.
What happened
Marjan International Corp. v. Sara’s Oriental Rugs LLC, Sam Ramazani, and Sara Ramazani ended after the parties told Judge Valerie Caproni that they had reached an agreement in principle resolving all issues.
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 it within 30 days by showing good cause. They could also ask the court to keep authority to enforce their settlement by filing the settlement agreement and a request within that same period.
Judge Valerie Caproni entered the order on July 7, 2022. The opinion does not state the settlement’s terms.
The detailed version
- Marjan International Corp. v. Sara's Oriental Rugs, LLC · No. 1:22-cv-03135
- Valerie Caproni
- July 7, 2022
Background
The parties notified the court that they had reached an agreement in principle resolving all issues. The opinion does not describe the agreement’s terms.
Court’s action
Judge Valerie Caproni ordered that all previously scheduled conferences and other deadlines be canceled. The court 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.
Possible reopening and enforcement
The parties could apply to reopen the case within 30 days of the order. The application had to show good cause for keeping the case open despite the settlement; a late application or one lacking that showing could be denied on that basis alone.
If the parties wanted the court to retain jurisdiction—that is, authority to enforce the settlement agreement—they had to submit the agreement and request an order expressly retaining jurisdiction within the same 30-day period. The order cited Hendrickson v. United States, 791 F.3d 354 (2d Cir. 2015), on that issue.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.