In the Matter of the Complaint of Archer Daniels Midland Company and American…
In the Matter of the Complaint of Archer Daniels Midland Company and American River Transportation Company LLC for Exoneration from, or Limitation of, Liability
- Wilhelmina Wright
- 0:18-cv-01131
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 2
In Archer Daniels Midland v. American River Transportation, Judge Wright took no action on the consent motion seeking a final liability-exoneration decree.
The ruling affects Archer Daniels Midland Company and American River Transportation Company LLC, as well as the consenting parties Union Pacific Railroad Company and Upper River Services, LLC, by leaving the requested final decree without court action.
What happened
Archer Daniels Midland Company and American River Transportation Company LLC asked the court to enter a final decree exonerating them from liability. Union Pacific Railroad Company and Upper River Services, LLC consented to the request.
The court explained that private parties ordinarily may settle their lawsuit without court approval. The parties did not provide legal authority showing that the court needed to approve or become involved in their agreement.
Judge Wilhelmina M. Wright declined to endorse the agreement and took no action on the consent motion for entry of a final decree of exoneration from liability.
The detailed version
- In the Matter of the Complaint of Archer Daniels Midland Company and American… · No. 0:18-cv-01131
- Wilhelmina Wright
- Aug. 9, 2019
Background
Petitioners Archer Daniels Midland Company and American River Transportation Company LLC filed a consent motion seeking entry of a final decree exonerating them from liability. Claimant Union Pacific Railroad Company and third-party Defendant Upper River Services, LLC consented to the motion.
Court’s analysis
The court explained that settlement of a lawsuit between private parties ordinarily belongs to the parties and does not require district-court approval. Court approval of a settlement is an exceptional circumstance rather than the general rule. The court also noted that certain procedures, including a stipulated dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) and judgment following an offer of judgment under Rule 68, operate without court approval.
The parties provided no legal authority addressing why the court should approve or substantively participate in their agreement. The court therefore concluded that there appeared to be no legal basis for submitting the proposed final decree to the court for approval and declined to endorse it.
Disposition
The court ordered that it would take no action on the Consent Motion for Entry of Final Decree of Exoneration from Liability, docket entry 59. The order did not state that the motion was denied or dismissed.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.