McKinney v. Achilles International, Inc.
- Valerie Caproni
- 1:23-cv-02833
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In McKinney v. Achilles International, Judge Caproni dismissed the settled case with prejudice and without costs.
Fiona McKinney and Achilles International, Inc.
What happened
In McKinney v. Achilles International, Inc., the parties told the court they had reached an agreement in principle resolving all issues. The court canceled all scheduled conferences and other deadlines.
The court 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.
Judge Caproni allowed the parties to request reopening within 30 days if they showed good cause. To have the court retain jurisdiction to enforce their settlement, they also had to file the settlement agreement and request that the court expressly retain jurisdiction within that period.
The detailed version
- McKinney v. Achilles International, Inc. · No. 1:23-cv-02833
- Valerie Caproni
- Feb. 15, 2024
Background
On February 14, 2024, Fiona McKinney and Achilles International, Inc. notified the court that they had reached an agreement in principle resolving all issues in the case.
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 to reopen the case within 30 days by showing good cause for keeping it open despite their settlement. A request filed after 30 days, or without a showing of good cause, could be denied on that basis alone.
If the parties wanted the court to retain jurisdiction—the authority to enforce their settlement agreement—they had to submit the agreement and request an order expressly retaining jurisdiction within the same 30-day period.
Disposition
The court dismissed the case with prejudice and without costs and directed that the case be closed. The order resolved the case based on the parties’ reported agreement in principle rather than deciding the underlying claims.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.