Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Jan. 24, 2023

Jones v. JK Moss Enterprises, LLC

Judge
Valerie Caproni
Docket
1:22-cv-07356
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil Procedure
In one sentence

In Jones v. JK Moss Enterprises, LLC, Judge Caproni dismissed the case with prejudice after the parties reported an agreement in principle, without costs or attorneys’ fees.

Who this affects

Damon Jones, the proposed class of similarly situated people, and JK Moss Enterprises, LLC.

What happened

In Jones v. JK Moss Enterprises, LLC, the parties told the court that they had reached an agreement in principle resolving all issues. The opinion does not describe the underlying claims or settlement terms.

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

Judge Valerie Caproni also allowed the parties to apply within 30 days to reopen the case if they could show good cause. If they wanted the court to retain authority to enforce their settlement, they had to submit the agreement and request that authority within the same 30-day period.

The detailed version

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

Case
Jones v. JK Moss Enterprises, LLC · No. 1:22-cv-07356
Judge
Valerie Caproni
Date
Jan. 24, 2023

Background

On January 22, 2023, the parties notified the court that they had reached an agreement in principle resolving all issues. The order does not state the underlying claims or describe the settlement terms.

Court’s Orders

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. Any such application had to show good cause for keeping the case open in light of the settlement; a request filed after 30 days or without a showing of good cause could be denied on that basis alone.

The order also stated that, if the parties wanted the court to retain jurisdiction—meaning authority—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 that authority within the same 30-day period.

Disposition

Judge Valerie Caproni dismissed the case with prejudice and without costs, including attorneys’ fees, and directed that the case be closed. The order did not decide the underlying claims on their merits; it followed the parties’ reported agreement in principle.

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.