Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Feb. 7, 2020

Calcano v. ADR Restaurant Inc.

Judge
Ronnie Abrams
Docket
1:19-cv-09603
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil ProcedureContract
In one sentence

In Calcano v. ADR Restaurant, Judge Abrams required public filing of the full settlement for possible continued court jurisdiction.

Who this affects

Marcos Calcano and ADR Restaurant Inc., who were parties to the proposed voluntary dismissal and settlement.

What happened

In Calcano v. ADR Restaurant Inc., the parties filed a voluntary-dismissal agreement and asked the court to keep overseeing the case and the parties until January 17, 2022, solely to enforce obligations in Section 2(C).

The court noted that the filing included only the text of Section 2(C), not the entire settlement agreement. It said the full agreement would have to be placed on the public record and approved by the court if the parties wanted the court to retain jurisdiction.

Judge Abrams gave the parties until February 14, 2020, to submit the complete agreement. The order did not state that the court retained jurisdiction or that the case was dismissed.

The detailed version

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

Case
Calcano v. ADR Restaurant Inc. · No. 1:19-cv-09603
Judge
Ronnie Abrams
Date
Feb. 7, 2020

Background

On February 6, 2020, the parties filed a stipulation of voluntary dismissal. They asked the court to retain jurisdiction over the parties and the action until January 17, 2022, for the sole purpose of enforcing their obligations under Section 2(C) of their settlement agreement. The stipulation included only the text of Section 2(C), rather than the entire settlement agreement.

Court’s Analysis

The court explained that, if the parties wanted it to retain jurisdiction, the complete settlement agreement had to be placed on the public record and approved by the court. The court cited Hendrickson v. United States, 791 F.3d 354, 358 (2d Cir. 2015), for that requirement.

Order

The court gave the parties until February 14, 2020, to submit the entire settlement agreement if they wanted the court to consider retaining jurisdiction. The opinion does not state that the court ultimately retained jurisdiction, entered the requested dismissal, or approved the settlement.

The authoritative version

Read the full 1-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.