Cross Media Marketing Corp. v. Budget Marketing, Inc., 02 Civ.9722(LAK).
| Decision Date | 25 May 2004 |
| Docket Number | No. 02 Civ.9722(LAK).,02 Civ.9722(LAK). |
| Parties | CROSS MEDIA MARKETING CORPORATION, Plaintiff, v. BUDGET MARKETING, INC., et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York |
P. Bradley O'Neill, Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP, New York City, for Plaintiff.
This Lanham Act case was brought in 2002 and settled pursuant to an agreement dated January 29, 2003 which called for certain defendants to make periodic payments to plaintiff. The agreement further provided that, upon execution and receipt of the initial payment, the parties would discontinue the action without prejudice and then recited that "[n]otwithstanding such dismissal, the Court shall retain continuing jurisdiction to enforce [its] ... terms." Finally, it stated that plaintiff, in the event of an uncured default, would have the right "to enter judgment ... for the full amount of all unpaid payments, with interest."
Following the execution of the agreement and the receipt by plaintiff of the initial payment, the parties filed a stipulation of discontinuance without prejudice which was approved unconditionally by the Court. The settlement agreement never was filed or approved. Plaintiff now contends that there has been a default under the settlement agreement and moves to reopen the case and to enter judgment for the unpaid balance.
In Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Insurance Co. of America, 511 U.S. 375, 114 S.Ct. 1673, 128 L.Ed.2d 391 (1994), the Supreme Court held that a district court, absent an express reservation by the Court, does not have "jurisdiction ... over disputes arising out of an agreement that produces" a stipulation of dismissal. While these parties certainly wished to have the Court retain jurisdiction for purposes of enforcing their agreement, they never submitted the settlement agreement to the Court and did not so provide in their stipulation of dismissal. The Court therefore did not retain jurisdiction for the purpose of enforcing the settlement agreement and lacks jurisdiction over plaintiff's current claim. See, e.g., 8 Moore's Federal Practice ¶ 41.34[6] [h] (3d ed.2000). Plaintiff's remedy is to sue on the settlement agreement.
This is not a matter of formalism. A district court is not obliged to retain jurisdiction to enforce a settlement simply because parties may wish it to do so. It might, for example, perhaps properly decline to retain jurisdiction where the administration of a settlement...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Limbright v. Hofmeister
...Deleon v. BBI Enters. Group, LP, No. 1:03-cv-820, 2006 WL 1313861, at *2 (W.D.Mich. May 11, 2006); Cross Media Mktg. Corp. v. Budget Mktg., Inc., 319 F.Supp.2d 482, 483 (S.D.N.Y.2004). ...
-
Lopez Morales v. Hospital Hermanos Melendez, Inc.
...agreement; in order for that intention to be effective, the Judgment must incorporate it. See, Cross Media Mktg. Corp. v. Budget Mktg., Inc., 319 F.Supp.2d 482, 483 (S.D.N.Y.2004) (finding that, despite the parties' intentions to that end, the district court had not preserved jurisdiction o......
-
Shanghai China Garments J&Y Import & Export Corp. v. Brooks Fitch Apparel Grp.
...Pepco Energy Services, Inc., No. 05 CV 4172, 2007 WL 4125094, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. Nov. 16, 2007); Cross Media Markeing Corp. v. Budget Marketing, Inc., 319 F. Supp. 2d 482, 482-83 (S.D.N.Y. 2004). And, in any event, diversity jurisdiction is unavailable here, since the value of the alleged sett......
-
In re Bernard L. Madoff Inv. Sec. Llc
...2010); Dover Ltd. v. A.B. Watley, Inc., No. 04–CIV–7366 (FM), 2007 WL 4358460 (S.D.N.Y. Dec.11, 2007); Cross Media Mktg. Corp. v. Budget Mktg., Inc., 319 F.Supp.2d 482, 483 (S.D.N.Y.2004). Although the Settlement contains an exclusive jurisdiction clause,1 the Stipulation, by its plain term......