Volman v. SIXSILY, LLC
- Valerie Caproni
- 1:22-cv-03350
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Volman v. SIXSILY, LLC, Judge Caproni dismissed the settled case with prejudice, while allowing a limited reopening request.
The parties were affected by the dismissal, cancellation of deadlines and conferences, termination of open motions, and closure of the case. They retained a 30-day opportunity to seek reopening for good cause or ask the court to retain jurisdiction to enforce their settlement agreement.
What happened
Volman v. SIXSILY, LLC ended after 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 without costs or attorneys’ fees to either party, terminated pending motions, and closed the case.
Judge Valerie Caproni allowed the parties 30 days to request reopening for good cause or to ask the court to retain authority to enforce their settlement agreement, subject to specified filing requirements.
The detailed version
- Volman v. SIXSILY, LLC · No. 1:22-cv-03350
- Valerie Caproni
- Sept. 23, 2022
Background
Josef Volman sued SIXSILY, LLC doing business as IL MELOGRANO, and Clinton Housing Development Fund Corporation. On September 22, 2022, the parties informed the court that they had reached an agreement in principle resolving all issues. The opinion does not describe the claims or the settlement’s terms.
Court’s action
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.
Settlement-related provisions
The parties were permitted to apply to reopen the case within 30 days. Any 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 without a showing of good cause could be denied solely for that reason.
If the parties wanted the court to retain jurisdiction—the power to enforce the settlement agreement—they had to submit the agreement and request an order expressly retaining that jurisdiction within the same 30-day period. The opinion does not state whether either party made such a request.
Disposition
The court dismissed the case with prejudice and closed it, subject to the stated 30-day provisions. The court did not decide the underlying claims.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.