Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Oct. 21, 2022

Walker v. Hayden Products, LLC

Judge
Valerie Caproni
Docket
1:22-cv-02360
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil Procedure
In one sentence

In Walker v. Hayden Products, Judge Caproni dismissed the settled case with prejudice and without costs, while allowing limited applications to reopen.

Who this affects

Brian Walker, Hayden Products, LLC, and Coffee Pond, LLC; the case was dismissed with prejudice following the parties’ agreement in principle.

What happened

In Walker v. Hayden Products, LLC, the court was told that the parties had reached an agreement in principle resolving all issues. The opinion does not describe the agreement's terms.

The court canceled all scheduled conferences and other deadlines. It also directed the Clerk of Court to terminate all open motions and close the case.

The case was dismissed with prejudice and without costs, including attorneys’ fees, to either party. Within 30 days, the parties could apply to reopen the case for good cause or ask the court to retain jurisdiction to enforce their settlement agreement. Judge Valerie Caproni issued the order.

The detailed version

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

Case
Walker v. Hayden Products, LLC · No. 1:22-cv-02360
Judge
Valerie Caproni
Date
Oct. 21, 2022

Background

The plaintiff is Brian Walker, and the defendants are Hayden Products, LLC and Coffee Pond, LLC. On October 20, 2022, the court was notified that, through the magistrate judge, the parties had reached an agreement in principle resolving all issues. The opinion does not provide the settlement terms or explain the underlying claims.

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

Reopening and settlement enforcement

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 in light of the settlement. The order stated that an application filed after 30 days, or without a showing of good cause, could be denied solely on that basis.

The order also stated that, if the parties wanted the court to retain jurisdiction to enforce their settlement agreement, they had to submit the agreement under Rule 7.A of the court’s Individual Practices and request an order expressly retaining jurisdiction. Judge Valerie Caproni entered the order on October 21, 2022.

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.