IOWA SQUARE REALTY LLC v. THOTA
- Richard Sullivan
- 1:17-cv-09933
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Iowa Square Realty v. Thota, Judge Sullivan declined to modify the settlement-enforcement order while an appeal was pending but indicated he might do so after remand or dismissal.
Iowa Square Realty LLC and defendants Ravinder Thota and Yashodhara Devi Thota, whose settlement-enforcement dispute was under appeal.
What happened
Iowa Square Realty LLC v. Thota concerns the parties’ request to change an earlier order enforcing their July 26, 2018 settlement agreement. The defendants had appealed that order, and plaintiff’s counsel reported that the parties agreed to dismiss the appeal if the order stated that the court would keep authority to enforce the settlement.
The court said it could not modify the earlier order while the appeal remained pending. It treated the parties’ request as a request for an advisory ruling under a federal appellate rule and indicated that, after the appeal was remanded or dismissed, it would be inclined to consider changing the order if necessary.
The court ordered the parties to notify it if the appeal was remanded or dismissed and allowed them to renew their request then. It also required them to explain why an amendment was needed, given the court’s earlier retention of authority to enforce the settlement. Judge Richard J. Sullivan issued the order.
The detailed version
- IOWA SQUARE REALTY LLC v. THOTA · No. 1:17-cv-09933
- Richard Sullivan
- Jan. 14, 2020
Background
On September 9, 2019, the court granted Iowa Square Realty LLC’s motion to enforce the parties’ July 26, 2018 settlement agreement. On October 7, 2019, Ravinder Thota and Yashodhara Devi Thota appealed that order.
Plaintiff’s counsel later reported that the parties had agreed to dismiss the appeal if the district court amended or modified its September 9 order to state that the court would retain jurisdiction—that is, authority—to enforce the settlement agreement.
Analysis
The court held that the pending appeal deprived it of jurisdiction to modify or amend the September 9 order at that time. The court instead construed the parties’ joint request as a motion for an “indicative ruling” under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 12.1. Such a ruling allows a district court to state how it would act if the appellate court remanded the matter or if the appeal were dismissed.
The court indicated that, after remand or dismissal of the appeal, it would be inclined to amend the September 9 order to reflect that it retained jurisdiction to enforce the settlement, if such an amendment were necessary. The court also noted that the amendment appeared unnecessary because it had previously retained jurisdiction to enforce the settlement and the September 9 order had not changed that prior retention.
Disposition
The court ordered the parties to promptly notify it if the appeal was remanded or dismissed. They could then renew their request to amend or modify the September 9 order. The court further ordered that any renewed request address whether and why an amendment was necessary in light of the court’s prior retention of jurisdiction. The order did not itself amend or modify the September 9 order.
Judge Richard J. Sullivan, a United States Circuit Judge sitting by designation, issued the order.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.