Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Mar. 30, 2023

Harris v. Premium Merchant Funding One, LLC

Judge
Valerie Caproni
Docket
1:23-cv-00344
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil ProcedureContract
In one sentence

In Harris v. Premium Merchant Funding, Judge Caproni dismissed the settled case with prejudice and without costs, subject to a 30-day reopening request.

Who this affects

Tiffany Harris and Premium Merchant Funding One, LLC; the case is closed, and the order provides that neither party may recover costs or attorneys’ fees.

What happened

In Harris v. Premium Merchant Funding One, LLC, the parties told the court they had reached an agreement in principle resolving all issues. The order does not describe the underlying claims or the settlement’s terms.

The court canceled all scheduled conferences and deadlines, dismissed the case with prejudice and without costs, including attorneys’ fees, and directed the Clerk to close the case and terminate pending motions. The parties may ask to reopen the case within 30 days, but they must show good cause.

Judge Valerie Caproni also explained that the court could retain authority to enforce the settlement only if the parties submitted the agreement and requested that authority within the same 30-day period.

The detailed version

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

Case
Harris v. Premium Merchant Funding One, LLC · No. 1:23-cv-00344
Judge
Valerie Caproni
Date
Mar. 30, 2023

Background

On March 30, 2023, Tiffany Harris, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, and Premium Merchant Funding One, LLC, doing business as Premium Merchant Funding, notified the court that they had reached an agreement in principle resolving all issues. The order does not state the underlying claims or provide the settlement 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 of Court was directed to terminate all open motions and close the case.

The parties may apply to reopen the case within 30 days of the order. Such an application must show good cause for keeping the case open despite the settlement. The order states that a request filed after 30 days, or filed without a showing of good cause, may be denied on that basis alone.

If the parties want the court to retain authority to enforce their settlement agreement, they must, within the same 30-day period, submit the agreement under the court’s individual practices and request an order expressly retaining that authority.

Disposition

Judge Valerie Caproni dismissed the case with prejudice and without costs, canceled the scheduled proceedings and deadlines, terminated the open motions, and directed that the case be closed. The order permits a timely, good-cause request to reopen and sets requirements for the court to retain 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.