Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Mar. 21, 2024

Shenzhen Long King Logistics Co., Ltd v. Hop Wo Int'l Trading, Inc

Judge
Valerie Caproni
Docket
1:22-cv-10682
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil ProcedureContract
In one sentence

In Shenzhen Long King Logistics v. Hop Wo Int’l Trading, Judge Caproni dismissed the case with prejudice and without costs after the parties settled.

Who this affects

Shenzhen Long King Logistics Co., Ltd., Hop Wo Int’l Trading, Inc., and Yaohua Li; the case was closed after an agreement resolving all issues.

What happened

Shenzhen Long King Logistics Co., Ltd. sued Hop Wo Int’l Trading, Inc. and Yaohua Li. On March 20, 2024, the court was told that the parties had reached an agreement on all issues through the magistrate judge.

The court canceled all scheduled conferences and deadlines, dismissed the case with prejudice, and ordered that neither side receive costs or attorneys’ fees. The clerk was directed to terminate all pending motions and close the case.

Judge Valerie Caproni entered the order. The parties may ask to reopen the case within 30 days if they show good cause. During that same period, they may also ask the court to retain authority to enforce their settlement by submitting the agreement and a specific request for that authority.

The detailed version

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

Case
Shenzhen Long King Logistics Co., Ltd v. Hop Wo Int'l Trading, Inc · No. 1:22-cv-10682
Judge
Valerie Caproni
Date
Mar. 21, 2024

Background

Shenzhen Long King Logistics Co., Ltd. brought the case against Hop Wo Int’l Trading, Inc. and Yaohua Li. The opinion states that, on March 20, 2024, the court was notified that an agreement had been reached through the magistrate judge on all issues.

Order

Judge Valerie Caproni ordered that all previously scheduled conferences and other deadlines be canceled. The court 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.

Reopening and Settlement Enforcement

The parties may apply to reopen the case within 30 days of the order. Such an application must show good cause for keeping the case open despite the settlement. A request filed after 30 days or without a showing of good cause may be denied on that basis alone.

If the parties want the court to retain jurisdiction—meaning authority—to enforce their settlement agreement, they must, within the same 30-day period, submit the agreement under Rule 7.A of the court’s Individual Practices and request an order expressly retaining that authority.

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.