Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Aug. 23, 2022

Martinez v. United States Of America

Judge
Valerie Caproni
Docket
1:20-cv-07275
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil ProcedureContract
In one sentence

In Martinez v. United States, Judge Caproni dismissed the settled case with prejudice and without costs, while allowing a 30-day reopening request for good cause.

Who this affects

Richard Martinez and the defendants, because their case was dismissed with prejudice following an agreement resolving all issues.

What happened

In Martinez v. United States of America, the parties informed the court that an agreement had been reached on all issues through a magistrate judge. The order does not describe the agreement’s terms.

The court canceled the 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 all open motions.

Judge Valerie Caproni allowed the parties 30 days to request reopening by showing good cause. During that period, they could also ask the court to retain authority to enforce their settlement by submitting the agreement and a specific request for continued jurisdiction.

The detailed version

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

Case
Martinez v. United States Of America · No. 1:20-cv-07275
Judge
Valerie Caproni
Date
Aug. 23, 2022

Background

On August 12, 2022, the court was notified that the parties had reached an agreement on all issues through a magistrate judge. The order does not state the agreement’s terms.

Order

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 was directed to terminate all open motions and close the case.

The parties could apply to reopen the case within 30 days of the order. Any such 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.

The order also stated that, if the parties wanted the court to retain jurisdiction—meaning authority to enforce the settlement agreement—they had to submit the agreement and request an order expressly retaining that authority within the same 30-day period.

Disposition

Judge Valerie Caproni dismissed the case with prejudice and without costs and directed that it be closed, subject to the stated 30-day procedures for seeking reopening or continued jurisdiction to enforce the settlement.

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.