Ray v. The New 42nd Street, Inc.
- Alvin Hellerstein
- 1:22-cv-04811
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Ray v. The New 42nd Street, Judge Hellerstein denied both post-dismissal motions because no independent basis for court jurisdiction was shown.
Kevin Ray and The New 42nd Street, Inc.; the case remains closed, and the court denied both post-dismissal motions.
What happened
In Ray v. The New 42nd Street, Inc., the parties had agreed to dismiss the case without reserving the court’s authority to handle later disputes.
After dismissal, the defendant asked the court to enforce settlement and confidentiality agreements. Ray also asked the court to impose sanctions, meaning penalties, based on the defendant’s claim that Ray had violated those agreements.
Judge Hellerstein denied both motions. He ruled that enforcing the agreements after dismissal would require a separate basis for federal court authority, and none had been shown. He also denied sanctions, noting that although the court was skeptical that Ray had violated the agreements, the defendant’s claim was not frivolous. The case remains closed.
The detailed version
- Ray v. The New 42nd Street, Inc. · No. 1:22-cv-04811
- Alvin Hellerstein
- Mar. 5, 2024
Background
The parties stipulated to dismissal of the action without reserving jurisdiction, meaning the court did not retain authority to decide later disputes arising from the parties’ agreements. After the dismissal, the parties filed motions at ECF Nos. 15 and 20.
Motions and Analysis
The defendant moved to enforce settlement and confidentiality agreements. The court held that a post-dismissal motion to enforce those agreements constituted a separate cause of action and required an independent basis for federal jurisdiction. The court stated that no such basis had been shown.
Ray moved for sanctions. The court denied that motion for the same reasons. It also stated that, although it was skeptical that Ray had violated the agreements, the claim that Ray had done so was not frivolous.
Disposition
The court denied the defendant’s motion to enforce the agreement and denied Ray’s motion for sanctions. The Clerk was instructed to terminate the open motions at ECF Nos. 15 and 20, and the case was to remain closed.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.