Nyk Bulk & Project Carriers Ltd. v. O.W. Bunker USA Inc.
- Valerie Caproni
- 1:14-cv-10090
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Nyk Bulk & Project Carriers v. O.W. Bunker, Judge Caproni canceled deadlines and set dismissal with prejudice after settlement, subject to required filings.
The parties in both actions, including the named plaintiffs and defendants, were required to meet the stated deadlines and provide information about settlement enforcement and distribution of the deposited funds.
What happened
In Nyk Bulk & Project Carriers Ltd. v. O.W. Bunker USA Inc. and the related NYK Trading Corporation action, the parties told Judge Valerie Caproni that they had reached a settlement in principle on December 2, 2020.
The court canceled all previously scheduled conferences and other deadlines. It directed that the actions would be dismissed with prejudice on February 5, 2021, unless a party asked before that date for the actions not to be dismissed and explained why.
Judge Valerie Caproni also said the parties had to submit their settlement agreement and request continued court authority to enforce it by January 29, 2021, if they wanted that authority. Upon dismissal, the court would direct the Clerk to distribute the deposited amount, plus interest, after the parties jointly provided payment details by February 5, 2021.
The detailed version
- Nyk Bulk & Project Carriers Ltd. v. O.W. Bunker USA Inc. · No. 1:14-cv-10090
- Valerie Caproni
- Dec. 2, 2020
Background
The opinion concerns two actions. In the first, NYK Bulk & Project Carriers Ltd. sued O.W. Bunker USA Inc., NuStar Energy Services, Inc., Harley Marine Gulf, Inc., and ING Bank N.V. In the second, NYK Trading Corporation sued O.W. Bunker USA Inc., O.W. Bunker USA Inc. Liquidating Trust, and NuStar Energy Services, Inc. The parties informed the court that they had reached a settlement in principle.
Court’s Orders
The court canceled all previously scheduled conferences and other deadlines. It ordered that each action would be dismissed with prejudice on February 5, 2021, unless one or more parties filed a letter before that date asking the court not to dismiss the action and explaining why dismissal should not occur in light of the settlement. The court warned that a request filed on or after February 5, 2021, could be denied solely because it was late.
If the parties wanted the court to retain jurisdiction—meaning continued authority—to enforce the settlement agreement, they had to submit the agreement under Rule 7.A of the court’s Individual Practices and request an order expressly retaining that authority by January 29, 2021.
Deposited Funds
Upon dismissal, the court would order the Clerk of Court to disburse the amount deposited, plus interest. By February 5, 2021, the parties had to jointly tell the court how much should be paid to each party, the payees for the checks, and the addresses where the checks should be sent.
Disposition
Judge Valerie Caproni did not decide the underlying dispute. Instead, she issued case-management and settlement-related orders setting a future dismissal with prejudice and requirements concerning possible settlement enforcement and distribution of deposited funds.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.