Ray v. The New 42nd Street, Inc.

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK te ee ne ne te re TIT ITS IS TS K

KBVIN RAY, - ORDER DENYING Plaintiff, . DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO -apainst- . ENFORCE AGREEMENT AND PLAINTIFE’S MOTION FOR THE NEW 42nd STREET, INC., : SANCTIONS Defendant. Civ, 4811 (AKH)

. ce tn ee nn □ EA TTT IT x ALVIN K. HELLERSTEIN, U.S.D.J.: The parties stipulated to the dismissal of this action without any reservation of

jurisdiction by this Court. ECF No. 14. Hence, a motion to enforce the settlement and

confidentiality agreements post-dismissal constitutes its own cause of action, requiring

independent grounds for jurisdiction, No basis has been shown. See Hendrickson v. United

States, 791 F.3d 354, 358 Q2d Cir. 2015). Plaintiff's motion for sanctions is denied for the same reasons. Furthermore,

although the Court is skeptical that Ray violated the agreements’ terms, it is not frivolous that the

claim was made. The Clerk is instructed to terminate the open motions at ECF Nos. 15 and 20. The

case shall remain closed.

SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 5, 2024 [ bot f Eee New York, New York ALVIN K. HELLERSTEIN United States District Judge