Bello Paulino v. S & P Mini Market Corp.

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK on oo oo nn on = = =X JOSE LUIS BELLO PAULINO, : Plaintiff, > ORDER -V.- : 22 Civ. 8724 (GWG) S & P MINI MARKET CORP. et al., : Defendants. : eo oe □ 5 5 = = = =X GABRIEL W. GORENSTEIN, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE The Court has further considered the procedure that plaintiff must use to effectuate what he contends is a settlement of this matter that obviates the jury’s verdict. It is unclear what motion plaintiff contemplates in his letter of January 21, 2025 (Docket # 103) when he refers to a “motion to vacate the judgment/jury verdict.” The Court believes that Fed. R. Civ. P. 59 does not apply because plaintiff is not seeking a new trial and that Fed. R. Civ. P. 60 does not apply because no judgment or order has been entered. Rather, the proper vehicle appears to be a motion to enforce the purported settlement. See Meetings & Expositions, Inc. v. Tandy Corp., 490 F.2d 714, 717 (2d Cir. 1974).(“[a] district court has the power to enforce summarily, on motion, a settlement agreement reached in a case that was pending before it.”); see also Conway v. Healthfirst, Inc., 2024 WL 5359849 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 8, 2024) (discussing the law applicable to such a motion). The Court also believes that this case will proceed in a more orderly fashion if the Court sets a deadline for such a motion. Accordingly, plaintiff shall make any motion to enforce the settlement agreement by the deadline set forth in Docket # 104, that is, February 28, 2025. Briefing thereafter shall be in accordance with paragraph 2.B of the Court’s Individual Practices. SO ORDERED Dated: January 30, 2025 New York, New York

Ln ag esl United States Magistrate Judge