Stevez v. Russell Sage College
- Valerie Caproni
- 1:21-cv-06171
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Stevez v. Russell Sage College, Judge Caproni ordered the parties to clarify and document their settlement before deciding whether to retain enforcement jurisdiction.
Arturo Stevez and Russell Sage College, whose settlement documentation and request for the court to retain authority to enforce the settlement were addressed by the order.
What happened
In Stevez v. Russell Sage College, the parties told the court that they had reached an agreement in principle resolving all issues. They then filed a proposed consent decree, which said the court would keep authority to enforce the settlement.
The court ordered the parties to state whether the consent decree was their entire settlement. If it was not, they had to file the complete agreement or explain why they would not file it and why the court should still keep authority over the matters covered by the decree. If it was complete, both parties had to submit sworn statements confirming that no other settlement terms existed, including payment terms.
Judge Valerie Caproni required the supplemental filing by February 4, 2022. The order addressed the documentation needed for possible enforcement of the settlement; it did not state that the court approved the settlement or dismissed the case.
The detailed version
- Stevez v. Russell Sage College · No. 1:21-cv-06171
- Valerie Caproni
- Jan. 28, 2022
Background
The parties notified the court on January 26, 2022, that they had reached an agreement in principle resolving all issues. They later filed a proposed consent decree stating that the court would retain jurisdiction, meaning legal authority, to enforce the settlement.
The court explained that its practice was not to retain jurisdiction unless the parties filed the entire settlement agreement on the docket. The order therefore sought clarification about whether the proposed consent decree contained all settlement terms.
Order
The court ordered the parties to inform it whether the consent decree was the entire settlement agreement. If it was not, the parties had to either provide the complete agreement or explain why they were unwilling to file it and why the court should nevertheless retain jurisdiction over the portion discussed in the proposed consent decree. The order specifically gave as an example a separate agreement involving financial compensation to the plaintiff or the plaintiff’s counsel.
If the consent decree was the entire agreement, both parties had to submit sworn declarations stating that the settlement contained no other provisions, including provisions concerning payments to the plaintiff or the plaintiff’s counsel. The parties had to file the supplemental submission by February 4, 2022.
Disposition
This order required a supplemental submission concerning the settlement and possible enforcement jurisdiction. It did not state that the settlement was approved, that the case was dismissed, or that the underlying claims were decided.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.