Smith v. Mt. Hawley Insurance Company
- Valerie Caproni
- 1:22-cv-09865
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Smith v. Mt. Hawley Insurance Company, Judge Caproni dismissed the case with prejudice and without costs after the parties reported an agreement in principle.
Stratton H. Smith, P.A. Trustee and Mt. Hawley Insurance Company were affected because their case was dismissed with prejudice, with no costs or attorneys’ fees awarded to either party. They retained limited options to seek reopening or court enforcement of their settlement agreement within 30 days.
What happened
Stratton H. Smith, P.A. Trustee sued Mt. Hawley Insurance Company, but this order does not describe the underlying claims or disputes. The parties told the court they had reached an agreement in principle resolving all issues.
The court canceled all scheduled conferences and other deadlines, terminated all open motions, and directed the clerk to close the case. It also stated that the parties could ask to reopen the case within 30 days if they showed good cause.
Judge Valerie Caproni dismissed Smith v. Mt. Hawley Insurance Company with prejudice and without costs, including attorneys’ fees, to either party. The parties could also ask the court within 30 days to retain jurisdiction to enforce their settlement agreement by submitting the agreement and a request for that authority.
The detailed version
- Smith v. Mt. Hawley Insurance Company · No. 1:22-cv-09865
- Valerie Caproni
- July 5, 2023
Background
The parties notified the court on June 30, 2023, that they had reached an agreement in principle resolving all issues. The order does not state what claims or defenses were involved.
Court’s Action
The court canceled all previously scheduled conferences and other deadlines. It directed the clerk to terminate all open motions and close the case.
The court dismissed the case with prejudice and without costs, including attorneys’ fees, to either party. A dismissal with prejudice bars the claims from being brought again in the same case. The order also 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 despite the settlement; a late application or one without a showing of good cause could be denied on that basis alone.
The parties could also ask the court to retain jurisdiction—the court’s authority to enforce the settlement agreement—if, within the same 30-day period, they submitted the agreement as required by the court’s practices and requested an order expressly retaining that authority.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.