Western Bulk Carriers AS v. O.W. Bunker & Trading A/S
- Valerie Caproni
- 1:15-cv-08304
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Western Bulk Carriers AS v. O.W. Bunker & Trading A/S, Judge Caproni set dismissal with prejudice for August 23 unless the parties objected.
The plaintiffs, the four defendants, and the parties’ settlement and deposited funds were affected by the canceled deadlines, conditional dismissal, possible retention of enforcement authority, and planned disbursement.
What happened
In Western Bulk Carriers AS v. O.W. Bunker & Trading A/S, the parties told the court on June 21, 2021, that they had reached a settlement in principle.
The court canceled all scheduled conferences and other deadlines. It ordered that the case would be dismissed with prejudice on August 23, 2021, unless a party filed a timely letter explaining why dismissal should not occur. The parties could also ask the court to retain authority to enforce their settlement by submitting the agreement and a request by August 16.
The order also stated that, after dismissal, the clerk would disburse the deposited amount plus interest. By August 23, the parties had to jointly tell the court the amount to be paid, the payees, and the mailing address. Judge Valerie Caproni issued the order.
The detailed version
- Western Bulk Carriers AS v. O.W. Bunker & Trading A/S · No. 1:15-cv-08304
- Valerie Caproni
- June 22, 2021
Background
Western Bulk Carriers AS and Western Bulk Chartering AS brought this action individually and on behalf of M/V Long Lucky against O.W. Bunker & Trading A/S, O.W. Supply & Trading A/S, U.S. Oil Trading, LLC, and ING Bank N.V. The opinion states that the parties reached a settlement in principle on June 21, 2021.
Order
The court canceled all previously scheduled conferences and other deadlines. It ordered that the action would be dismissed with prejudice on August 23, 2021, unless, before that date, one or more parties filed a letter asking that the action not be dismissed and explaining why dismissal was inappropriate in light of the settlement. The court warned that a request filed on or after August 23 could be denied solely because it was late.
The court also set a procedure for retaining jurisdiction—the court’s authority to enforce the settlement agreement. If the parties wanted the court to retain that authority, they had to submit the settlement agreement and request an order expressly retaining jurisdiction by August 16, 2021.
Deposited Funds
Upon dismissal, the court stated that it would direct the clerk to disburse the deposited amount plus interest. By August 23, the parties had to jointly inform the court of the amount to be paid, the names of the check recipients, and the address where the checks should be sent.
Disposition
This order did not itself state that the action had already been dismissed. Instead, it established a future dismissal with prejudice unless a timely objection was filed. Judge Valerie Caproni signed the order.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.