Herrera v. Zelouf International Corp.
- Vyskocil
- 1:23-cv-06721
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Herrera v. Zelouf International Corp., Judge Vyskocil required a joint update instead of immediately approving the proposed settlement and keeping jurisdiction.
Carlos Herrera and Zelouf International Corp.; the order required them to clarify whether they would proceed with the proposed settlement or continue the case.
What happened
In Herrera v. Zelouf International Corp., Carlos Herrera and Zelouf International Corp. jointly asked the court to approve a proposed settlement. Their proposal would have kept the court’s authority over the case for 36 months.
The court explained that it usually does not keep authority to enforce settlement agreements. The parties had not shown why the case could not be ended through a voluntary dismissal agreement, which generally does not require court approval.
Judge Vyskocil ordered the parties to file a joint letter by March 1, 2024, stating whether they would proceed under the voluntary-dismissal rule identified in the order or whether Herrera wanted to continue the case. The court did not approve the proposed consent decree in this order.
The detailed version
- Herrera v. Zelouf International Corp. · No. 1:23-cv-06721
- Vyskocil
- Jan. 17, 2024
Background
Carlos Herrera sued Zelouf International Corp. on behalf of himself and others similarly situated. The parties jointly asked the court to approve a proposed consent decree. The proposed decree stated that the court’s jurisdiction would continue for 36 months.
Court’s Analysis
Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil explained that the court’s Individual Rules of Practice in Civil Cases generally do not provide for the court to retain jurisdiction to enforce settlement agreements. The parties had not identified a reason why the case could be dismissed only by a court order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2).
The court stated that the parties were free to settle on terms they chose through a stipulated voluntary dismissal under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), and that such a dismissal does not require judicial approval. The court further explained that entering the proposed judgment while retaining jurisdiction to enforce the agreement would give the settlement the court’s formal approval.
Order
The court ordered the parties to file a joint letter on the docket by March 1, 2024. The letter must state whether they intend to settle the case under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i), as specified in the order, or whether Herrera wishes to continue prosecuting the action. The order did not approve the proposed consent decree or otherwise decide the underlying dispute.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.