Dollar Goal Discount, Inc. v. United States
- Vyskocil
- 1:20-cv-01695
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Dollar Goal Discount v. United States, Judge Vyskocil ordered a telephone conference to discuss settlement and questioned retaining jurisdiction to enforce it.
Dollar Goal Discount, Inc. et al. and the United States of America, whose proposed settlement and dismissal procedure were addressed by the court.
What happened
Dollar Goal Discount, Inc. and the United States submitted a proposed settlement to the court in Dollar Goal Discount, Inc. v. United States of America. The proposal asked the court to keep authority over the case to enforce the settlement.
The court noted that it usually does not keep authority to enforce settlement agreements. It also explained that the parties could voluntarily dismiss the case by stipulation without court approval, on whatever terms they chose.
Judge Vyskocil ordered the parties to attend a telephone conference on September 17, 2020, to discuss the proposed settlement. The order did not approve the settlement or dismiss the case.
The detailed version
- Dollar Goal Discount, Inc. v. United States · No. 1:20-cv-01695
- Vyskocil
- Sept. 10, 2020
Background
The parties submitted a proposed stipulation and order of settlement. The proposed settlement stated that the court would retain jurisdiction—continuing authority over the case—to enforce the stipulation.
Court’s analysis
Judge Vyskocil stated that the court’s individual rules generally provide that it will not retain jurisdiction to enforce settlement agreements. The court also said the parties had not identified a reason why the case could only be dismissed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2), which allows a court to set terms for certain dismissals. The court explained that the parties could instead settle under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), which permits a stipulated voluntary dismissal when the parties consent. Such a dismissal does not require judicial approval, and the parties remain bound by their stipulation.
The court further explained that if it approved the proposed settlement and retained jurisdiction to enforce it, that action would give the settlement the court’s official authority.
Order and effect
The court ordered the parties to appear by telephone on September 17, 2020, to discuss the proposed settlement. The order did not approve the proposed settlement, retain jurisdiction to enforce it, or dismiss the action. The conference was to be held by telephone because of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.