Wee v. Charles David of California

Wee v. Charles David of California

Plaintiff:	Dahlen Kok Han Wee
Defendant:	Charles David of California
Case Number:	1:2012cv04609
Filed:	June 13, 2012
Court:	US District Court for the Southern District of New York
Office:	Foley Square Office
County:	Kings
Presiding Judge:	P. Kevin Castel
Nature of Suit:	Other Contract
Cause of Action:	28 U.S.C. § 1332
Jury Demanded By:	Plaintiff

Follow case documents by RSS

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed	Document Text
October 10, 2013	Filing 14 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER denying 11 Motion to Reopen Case. This action was dismissed on February 7, 2013 in an Order that recited that the Court had been advised that all claims had been settled. The Order of dismissal was conditioned upon the right of any party "to reopen the action within thirty (30) days if the settlement is not consummated." No application to reopen was made within the thirty (30) days and thus the dismissal became final and unconditional.... It is settled that the C ourt posses no inherent power to enforce a settlement, in the absence of an express retention of jurisdiction or the entry of the settlement terms as an order of the Court. See Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of America, 511 U.S. 375, 378 (1994) ("Enforcement of the settlement agreement, however, whether through award of damages or decree of specific performance, is more than just a continuation or renewal of the dismissed suit, and hence requires its own basis for jurisdiction.") Plaintiff's motion (Dkt 11) is DENIED without prejudice to its right to proceed in a plenary action. (Signed by Judge P. Kevin Castel on 10/9/2013) (ja)

Date Filed

Document Text

October 10, 2013

Filing 14 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER denying 11 Motion to Reopen Case. This action was dismissed on February 7, 2013 in an Order that recited that the Court had been advised that all claims had been settled. The Order of dismissal was conditioned upon the right of any party "to reopen the action within thirty (30) days if the settlement is not consummated." No application to reopen was made within the thirty (30) days and thus the dismissal became final and unconditional.... It is settled that the C ourt posses no inherent power to enforce a settlement, in the absence of an express retention of jurisdiction or the entry of the settlement terms as an order of the Court. See Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of America, 511 U.S. 375, 378 (1994) ("Enforcement of the settlement agreement, however, whether through award of damages or decree of specific performance, is more than just a continuation or renewal of the dismissed suit, and hence requires its own basis for jurisdiction.") Plaintiff's motion (Dkt 11) is DENIED without prejudice to its right to proceed in a plenary action. (Signed by Judge P. Kevin Castel on 10/9/2013) (ja)

Access additional case information on PACER

Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.

Access this case on the New York Southern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Wee v. Charles David of California
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Plaintiff: Dahlen Kok Han Wee
Represented By:	Jonathan David Plaut
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Finance	[ Google Finance \| Yahoo Finance \| Hoovers \| SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Justia Dockets \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Defendant: Charles David of California
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Finance	[ Google Finance \| Yahoo Finance \| Hoovers \| SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Justia Dockets \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?