Court: District Court, S.D. New York; November 8, 2016; Federal District Court
An action under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) has reached a settlement, as indicated by a letter from the parties dated July 12, 2016. A 30-day dismissal order was issued on July 13, 2016, allowing for the case to be reopened if the settlement was not finalized within that period. The parties eventually submitted a Stipulation of Settlement on October 24-25, 2016, requiring defendant Shigemitsu New York, Inc. to make accessibility alterations and payment totaling $11,930, with $1,950 to go to plaintiff Carr Massi and $9,980 to his attorney. The payment to the plaintiff is to occur within 10 days, while there is no specified timeline for the attorney's fee payment. The alterations must be completed within nine months unless delayed by circumstances beyond Shigemitsu's control.
The Stipulation contains ambiguities regarding its execution and the court's jurisdiction. It retains jurisdiction to interpret the settlement terms, yet there are conflicting provisions on the consequences of a breach by defendants. Notably, in case of a breach, the plaintiff's causes of action may be revived, suggesting a potential rescission of the contract. Additionally, paragraph 17 indicates that if enforcement is needed, only the attorney may obtain a judgment against both defendants for fees and costs, although both are jointly liable for these expenses if Shigemitsu defaults. Conversely, paragraph 20 clarifies that a breach by one defendant does not affect the obligations of the other, and paragraph 6 confirms that both parties acknowledged understanding the Stipulation's terms and had the opportunity to consult their counsel prior to signing.
The Stipulation is signed solely by the parties' counsel, lacking signatures from the parties themselves. No judicially-supervised settlement conference occurred, and the Court did not facilitate the settlement or approve its terms. After reviewing the Stipulation, the Court declines to retain jurisdiction for settlement enforcement due to potential administrative difficulties. A district court is not required to maintain jurisdiction merely based on the parties' desires, particularly if enforcement would place undue burdens on the court. Multiple precedents support the Court's prerogative to not retain jurisdiction over a private settlement, especially when it had no role in brokering the agreement. In non-class ADA cases, judicial approval is unnecessary for settlement, allowing parties to agree on satisfactory terms without seeking continuing court jurisdiction. To retain jurisdiction for enforcement, a district court must expressly do so or incorporate the settlement's terms into an order. The Court has extended the deadline for the parties to finalize their settlement documents or reopen the action for an additional thirty days, until December 9, 2016. If the parties do not act within this timeframe, the case will be dismissed without prejudice and costs. The Stipulation does not include any provision for an automatic judgment or confession of judgment.
