HDI Global SE v. Kuehne + Nagel Inc.
- Valerie Caproni
- 1:22-cv-07420
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In HDI Global SE v. Kuehne + Nagel Inc., Judge Caproni dismissed the settled case with prejudice and without costs to either party.
HDI Global SE and Kuehne + Nagel Inc. were affected by the dismissal with prejudice, the absence of costs and attorneys’ fees, the closure of the case, and the 30-day procedures for reopening the case or requesting retained authority to enforce the settlement.
What happened
HDI Global SE, acting for Vifor Pharma AG, sued Kuehne + Nagel Inc., doing business as Blue Anchor America Line. The parties told the court that they had reached an agreement in principle resolving all issues.
The court canceled all scheduled conferences and deadlines. It dismissed the case with prejudice and without costs, including attorneys’ fees, to either party; terminated all open motions; and closed the case.
Judge Valerie Caproni also allowed the parties to seek reopening within 30 days by showing good cause. If they wanted the court to retain authority to enforce their settlement, they had to submit the settlement agreement and request that authority within the same 30-day period.
The detailed version
- HDI Global SE v. Kuehne + Nagel Inc. · No. 1:22-cv-07420
- Valerie Caproni
- Mar. 2, 2023
Background
HDI Global SE, acting for Vifor Pharma AG, brought this case against Kuehne + Nagel Inc., doing business as Blue Anchor America Line. The opinion does not describe the underlying claims. On March 2, 2023, the parties notified the court that they had reached an agreement in principle resolving all issues.
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. It directed the Clerk of Court to terminate all open motions and close the case.
The order permitted 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 a request filed after 30 days or without a showing of good cause could be denied on that basis alone.
The court also stated that, if the parties wanted it to retain 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, both within the same 30-day period.
Disposition
The court dismissed the case with prejudice and without costs to either party, terminated the open motions, and closed the case. The order resolved the case through the parties’ settlement and did not decide the underlying legal claims.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.