Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Oct. 6, 2023

India Globalization Capital, Inc. v. Apogee Financial Investments, Inc.

Judge
Valerie Caproni
Docket
1:21-cv-01131
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil ProcedureContract
In one sentence

In India Globalization Capital v. Apogee Financial, Judge Caproni dismissed the settled case with prejudice and no costs, allowing applications to reopen within 30 days.

Who this affects

India Globalization Capital, Inc. and Apogee Financial Investments, Inc.

What happened

India Globalization Capital, Inc. v. Apogee Financial Investments, Inc. was resolved after the parties told the court they had reached an agreement in principle settling all issues.

The court canceled all scheduled conferences and deadlines, ended all pending motions, and closed the case. It also stated that neither party would receive costs or attorneys’ fees.

Judge Valerie Caproni dismissed the case with prejudice. Within 30 days, the parties could ask to reopen it by showing good cause; they could also ask the court to retain authority to enforce their settlement by submitting the agreement and a separate request.

The detailed version

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

Case
India Globalization Capital, Inc. v. Apogee Financial Investments, Inc. · No. 1:21-cv-01131
Judge
Valerie Caproni
Date
Oct. 6, 2023

Background

On October 5, 2023, the court was informed that India Globalization Capital, Inc. and Apogee Financial Investments, Inc. had reached an agreement in principle resolving all issues through the magistrate.

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 was directed to terminate all open motions and close the case.

The parties were permitted to apply to reopen the case within 30 days. Any such application had to show good cause for keeping the case open despite the settlement, and an application 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 jurisdiction—that is, authority—to enforce their settlement agreement, they had to submit the agreement and request an order expressly retaining that authority within the same 30-day period.

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.