Kilpatrick v. National Railroad Passenger Corp.
- Valerie Caproni
- 1:20-cv-05870
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Kilpatrick v. National Railroad Passenger Corp., Judge Caproni dismissed the settled case with prejudice and allowed limited requests to reopen it.
Cherlyn Patti Kilpatrick and National Railroad Passenger Corp.; the case was dismissed with prejudice without costs or attorneys’ fees, and either party could seek reopening or continued court authority to enforce the settlement within 30 days under the order’s conditions.
What happened
In Kilpatrick v. National Railroad Passenger Corp., the court was informed that the parties had reached an agreement in principle resolving all issues through the magistrate judge. The opinion does not describe the underlying claims or the agreement’s terms.
The court canceled all scheduled conferences and deadlines and dismissed the case with prejudice, without costs or attorneys’ fees to either party. It also directed the Clerk of Court to terminate pending motions and close the case.
Judge Valerie Caproni said the parties could ask to reopen the case within 30 days by showing good cause. The parties could also ask the court to retain authority to enforce their settlement by submitting the agreement and a request within that same period.
The detailed version
- Kilpatrick v. National Railroad Passenger Corp. · No. 1:20-cv-05870
- Valerie Caproni
- Sept. 7, 2022
Background
The court stated that, on September 2, 2022, it was notified that the parties had reached an agreement in principle resolving all issues through the magistrate judge. The opinion does not provide the underlying claims, the settlement terms, or the identity of the magistrate judge.
Court’s 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 either party to apply to reopen the case within 30 days. Such an application had to show good cause for keeping the case open despite the settlement. The court stated that a request filed after 30 days, or filed without a showing of good cause, could be denied solely on that basis.
The order also explained that, if the parties wanted the court to retain jurisdiction—that is, authority to enforce the settlement agreement—they had to submit the settlement agreement and request an order expressly retaining jurisdiction within the same 30-day period.
Disposition
The court dismissed the case with prejudice and closed it, subject to the limited 30-day procedures described in the order. The court did not decide the merits of the underlying dispute.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.