Barnes v. The City of New York
- Vyskocil
- 1:19-cv-07275
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Barnes v. City of New York, Judge Vyskocil scheduled a conference about the parties’ proposed settlement dismissal and requested continuing jurisdiction.
The parties to Barnes v. The City of New York, who had reported reaching a settlement and submitted a proposed dismissal order.
What happened
In Barnes v. The City of New York, the parties told the court that they had reached a settlement and submitted a proposed order dismissing the case. Their proposal asked the court to keep authority over the case to enforce the settlement terms.
The court explained that it generally does not keep authority to enforce settlement agreements and that the parties had not filed the settlement agreement. The parties could instead privately dismiss the case by filing a joint agreement, without court approval, and would remain bound by that agreement.
Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil ordered the parties to appear by telephone on January 7, 2021, for a conference about the proposed dismissal order. The order did not approve the proposed order or decide whether the court would retain authority to enforce the settlement.
The detailed version
- Barnes v. The City of New York · No. 1:19-cv-07275
- Vyskocil
- Dec. 2, 2020
Background
The parties informed the court that they had reached a settlement and submitted a proposed order of dismissal. The proposed order asked the court to continue retaining jurisdiction, meaning authority over the case, to enforce the settlement agreement. The opinion states that the parties had not filed a copy of the settlement agreement.
Court’s Analysis
The court noted that its Individual Rules of Practice in Civil Cases generally provide that it will not retain jurisdiction to enforce settlement agreements. It explained that the parties were free to settle privately under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), which allows parties to voluntarily dismiss an action by stipulation. Such a dismissal does not require judicial approval, and the parties remain bound by the terms of their settlement stipulation.
The court further explained that issuing the proposed order and retaining jurisdiction to enforce the settlement would give the settlement the court’s formal approval, described in the opinion as a “judicial imprimatur.”
Disposition
The court ordered the parties to appear for a telephone conference on January 7, 2021, at 12:00 p.m. to discuss the proposed order. The order did not approve the proposed dismissal order, dismiss the case, or decide to retain jurisdiction over settlement enforcement.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.