Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Nov. 15, 2022

Doncouse v. On The Corner NY, LLC

Judge
Valerie Caproni
Docket
1:22-cv-05830
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil ProcedureContract
In one sentence

In Doncouse v. On The Corner NY, LLC, Judge Caproni dismissed the settled case with prejudice and without costs to either party.

Who this affects

Graciela Doncouse and defendants On The Corner NY, LLC d/b/a The Mary Lane and Left Bank Apartment Corp.; the case was dismissed with prejudice under the parties’ agreement in principle.

What happened

In Doncouse v. On The Corner NY, LLC, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint that the court said adequately alleged standing. The defendants then told the court that the parties had reached an agreement in principle resolving all issues.

The court canceled all scheduled conferences and deadlines, dismissed the case with prejudice, and ordered that neither party would pay costs or attorneys’ fees. The Clerk was directed to close the case and terminate all open motions.

Judge Valerie Caproni allowed the parties 30 days to ask to reopen the case for good cause. Judge Caproni also said they could ask the court to retain authority to enforce their settlement by submitting the settlement agreement and a specific request within that period.

The detailed version

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

Case
Doncouse v. On The Corner NY, LLC · No. 1:22-cv-05830
Judge
Valerie Caproni
Date
Nov. 15, 2022

Background

Graciela Doncouse was the plaintiff. The defendants were On The Corner NY, LLC, doing business as The Mary Lane, and Left Bank Apartment Corp. On November 14, 2022, Doncouse filed an amended complaint that the court said adequately alleged standing, meaning a sufficient connection to the dispute to bring the case in court.

The defendants had notified the court that the parties reached an agreement in principle resolving all issues and asked the court to retain jurisdiction, or legal authority over the case, for 45 days while they prepared settlement documents.

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

The court also stated that, if the parties wanted the court to retain jurisdiction to enforce their settlement agreement, they had to submit the agreement and a request for an order expressly retaining that authority within the same 30-day period.

Result

The court entered a dismissal with prejudice based on the parties’ settlement and closed the case. The order did not decide the underlying 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.