Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Oct. 18, 2022

Hart v. The Tri-State Consumer, Inc.

Judge
Valerie Caproni
Docket
1:21-cv-01738
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil ProcedureContract
In one sentence

In Hart v. The Tri-State Consumer, Judge Caproni dismissed the settled case with prejudice and without costs, while allowing a 30-day reopening request.

Who this affects

Penny Hart, The Tri-State Consumer, Inc., WT Holdings, Inc., and Charles Slatery—the parties to the case.

What happened

Hart v. The Tri-State Consumer, Inc. was dismissed after the parties told the court they had reached a settlement agreement. The opinion does not describe the underlying claims or the settlement’s terms.

The court canceled scheduled conferences and deadlines, terminated all open motions, and directed the clerk to close the case. The dismissal was with prejudice and without costs, including attorneys’ fees, to either side.

Judge Valerie Caproni allowed the parties 30 days to request reopening by showing good cause. Judge Caproni also stated that the court would retain authority to enforce the settlement only if the parties timely submitted the agreement and requested an order retaining that authority.

The detailed version

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

Case
Hart v. The Tri-State Consumer, Inc. · No. 1:21-cv-01738
Judge
Valerie Caproni
Date
Oct. 18, 2022

Background

On October 18, 2022, the parties informed the court that they had reached a settlement agreement. The opinion does not state the claims’ underlying facts or the settlement’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 to reopen the case within 30 days. Such an application had to show good cause for keeping the case open despite the settlement, and the order stated that a late application or one lacking a showing of good cause could be denied on that basis alone.

The order also addressed enforcement of the settlement. If the parties wanted the court to retain jurisdiction—legal authority—to enforce the settlement, 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, terminated the open motions, and directed that the case be closed, subject to the order’s 30-day provisions for seeking reopening or requesting retained authority 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.