An unexpected cameo by William Butler Yeats . . .
. . . set the tone for an issue of ancillary jurisdiction, and a holding that when a case is dismissed per a settlement, the district court may keep jurisdiction to enforce that settlement — and no more:
“When the parties settle their dispute and seek dismissal, the court may choose to treat the parties’ settlement as part of its dismissal order, either by retaining jurisdiction to enforce the settlement or by directly integrating the settlement into the dismissal order. If the court does that, breaching the settlement would violate the court’s order, and ancillary jurisdiction to enforce the agreement would therefore exist.’ [” Kokkonen v. Guardian Life, 511 U.S. 375, 381 (1994)].
...
But the power to enforce a settlement is just that. It’s not a blank check. It doesn’t authorize the district court to reach new issues or issues that only relate to the settlement. The court may decide ‘whether and under what terms’ to enforce the settlement, but it may go no further without an
independent basis for jurisdiction. Wise v. Wilkie, 955 F.3d 430, 436 (5th Cir. 2020) (cleaned up)).”
Vikas WSP, Ltd. v. Economy Mud Prods. Co., No. 20-20309 (Jan. 10, 2022).
The post Settling Settlements appeared first on 600 Camp.
from Texas Bar Today https://ift.tt/3IhR96d
via Abogado Aly Website
No comments:
Post a Comment