Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Aug. 25, 2022

Kerr v. Physician Affiliate Group of New York P.C.

Judge
Valerie Caproni
Docket
1:17-cv-01777
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil ProcedureContract
In one sentence

In Kerr v. Physician Affiliate Group, Judge Caproni dismissed the case with prejudice after the parties reached an agreement in principle.

Who this affects

Andrew Kerr, M.D., Physician Affiliate Group of New York P.C., and Dr. Hussein Matari, individually, were affected by the dismissal and the conditions for reopening or having the court enforce their settlement agreement.

What happened

Kerr v. Physician Affiliate Group of New York P.C. and Dr. Hussein Matari involved a case brought by Andrew Kerr, M.D. The parties told the court that they had reached an agreement in principle resolving all issues.

The court canceled the scheduled conferences and deadlines. It dismissed the case with prejudice and without costs, including attorneys’ fees, to either party; terminated all open motions; and closed the case.

Judge Valerie Caproni also stated that the parties could ask to reopen the case within 30 days, but they would need to show good cause. If they wanted the court to retain power to enforce their settlement agreement, they had to submit the agreement and request that authority within the same 30-day period.

The detailed version

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

Case
Kerr v. Physician Affiliate Group of New York P.C. · No. 1:17-cv-01777
Judge
Valerie Caproni
Date
Aug. 25, 2022

Background

On August 24, 2022, the parties 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 agreement.

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

The order allowed the parties to apply to reopen the case within 30 days. Any such application had to show good cause for keeping the case open in light of the settlement. The order stated that a request filed after 30 days, or without a showing of good cause, could be denied on that basis alone.

The court also stated that, if the parties wanted the court to retain jurisdiction—its authority to enforce the settlement agreement—they had to submit the settlement 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 to either party, terminated the open motions, and directed that the case be closed. The order did not decide the underlying legal claims on their merits.

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.