Andrews v. Green
- Valerie Caproni
- 1:19-cv-05622
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
Andrews v. City of New York ended after an agreement in principle; Judge Caproni dismissed the case with prejudice and without costs.
Michael D. Andrews and the defendants, including The City of New York; the case was closed, and the parties received a 30-day period to seek reopening or court retention of jurisdiction to enforce their settlement.
What happened
In Michael D. Andrews v. The City of New York, et al., the parties told the court 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, directed the clerk to close the case, and terminated all open motions.
Judge Valerie Caproni allowed the parties 30 days to seek reopening for good cause or to ask the court to retain jurisdiction to enforce their settlement agreement.
The detailed version
- Andrews v. Green · No. 1:19-cv-05622
- Valerie Caproni
- Aug. 23, 2022
Background
On August 16, 2022, the parties notified the court that they had reached an agreement in principle resolving all issues. The opinion does not provide 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 order allowed the parties to apply within 30 days to reopen the case. Such an application had to show good cause for keeping the case open despite the parties’ settlement, and a late application or one lacking a showing of good cause could be denied on that basis. The parties could also ask the court to retain jurisdiction—that is, continuing authority—to enforce their settlement agreement, but they had to submit the agreement and a request for retained jurisdiction within the same 30-day period.
Disposition
The case was dismissed with prejudice and without costs. The opinion does not decide the underlying claims because the parties reported an agreement in principle resolving the dispute.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.