Spivey v. MCR Development LLC
- Valerie Caproni
- 1:23-cv-03007
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Spivey v. MCR Development LLC, Judge Caproni dismissed the settled case with prejudice and without costs.
Angela Spivey and MCR Development LLC d/b/a MCR Hotels; the case was closed based on the parties’ agreement in principle.
What happened
Spivey v. MCR Development LLC involved Angela Spivey's case against MCR Development LLC, doing business as MCR Hotels. The parties told the court they had reached an agreement in principle resolving all issues.
The court canceled all scheduled conferences and deadlines, terminated all open motions, and closed the case. The order allowed the parties to apply within 30 days to reopen the case if they showed good cause.
Judge Valerie Caproni dismissed the case 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 such an order.
The detailed version
- Spivey v. MCR Development LLC · No. 1:23-cv-03007
- Valerie Caproni
- Oct. 5, 2023
Background
Angela Spivey sued MCR Development LLC, doing business as MCR Hotels. On October 3, 2023, the parties notified the court that they had reached an agreement in principle resolving all issues. The opinion does not describe the underlying claims or the settlement’s terms.
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 within 30 days to reopen the case. Any such application had to show good cause for keeping the case open despite the settlement. The court also stated that, if the parties wanted the court to retain jurisdiction—that is, continuing authority—to enforce the settlement agreement, they had to submit the agreement and request an order expressly retaining that authority within the same 30-day period.
Disposition
The court dismissed the case with prejudice and without costs to either party. This order resolved the case based on the parties’ agreement in principle and did not decide the merits of the underlying claims.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.