Brito v. Miami Lakes HY RE,LC

S.D. Florida

Brito v. Miami Lakes HY RE,LC

DecidedMay 14, 2021

Docket1:21-cv-20643

StatusUnknown

This text of Brito v. Miami Lakes HY RE,LC (Brito v. Miami Lakes HY RE,LC) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Brito v. Miami Lakes HY RE,LC, (S.D. Fla. 2021).

Pincite

Opinion

United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida

Carlos Brito, Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. 21-20643-Civ-Scola ) Miami Lakes HY RE, LLC and ) Potamkin Hyundai, Defendants. ) Order of Dismissal The Court grants in part and denies in part the parties’ joint motion for the entry of a consent decree and to dismiss this case with prejudice (ECF No. 19). The Court denies the parties’ request to approve the parties’ consent decree. While the Court does not mean to imply, through its denial, that it finds anything necessarily improper in the parties’ decree, a court’s review of a consent decree, nonetheless warrants “careful scrutiny” of its terms. Stovall v. City of Cocoa, Fla., 117 F.3d 1238, 1242–43 (11th Cir. 1997) (quoting U.S. v. City of Miami, Fla., 664 F.2d 435, 440–41 (5th Cir.1981) (en banc)). “This requires a determination that the proposal represents a reasonable factual and legal determination based on the facts of record, whether established by evidence, affidavit, or stipulation.” Stovall, 117 F.3d at 1242. While the parties advise they “have reached a settlement” (Jt. Mot. at 1), they provide no factual or legal support from which the Court could itself readily make this determination. See Stovall, 117 F.3d at 1243–44 (finding a record “insufficient” to support approving a consent decree). The court therefore declines to approve the consent decree as requested. Regardless, this has no impact on the parties’ agreement between themselves and, so, as the parties request, the Court reserves jurisdiction to enforce the parties’ settlement agreement. Based on the documents presented in conjunction with the parties’ joint motion, the Court construes the parties’ filing as a stipulation of dismissal with with prejudice in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). (See Prop. Final Order, ECF No. 19-2.) The Court directs the Clerk to close this case. All pending motions, if any, are denied as moot. Done and ordered in Miami, Florida, on May 13, 2021.

dobert N. Scola, Jr. United States District Judge

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida

Carlos Brito, Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. 21-20643-Civ-Scola ) Miami Lakes HY RE, LLC and ) Potamkin Hyundai, Defendants. ) Order of Dismissal The Court grants in part and denies in part the parties’ joint motion for the entry of a consent decree and to dismiss this case with prejudice (ECF No. 19). The Court denies the parties’ request to approve the parties’ consent decree. While the Court does not mean to imply, through its denial, that it finds anything necessarily improper in the parties’ decree, a court’s review of a consent decree, nonetheless warrants “careful scrutiny” of its terms. Stovall v. City of Cocoa, Fla., 117 F.3d 1238, 1242–43 (11th Cir. 1997) (quoting U.S. v. City of Miami, Fla., 664 F.2d 435, 440–41 (5th Cir.1981) (en banc)). “This requires a determination that the proposal represents a reasonable factual and legal determination based on the facts of record, whether established by evidence, affidavit, or stipulation.” Stovall, 117 F.3d at 1242. While the parties advise they “have reached a settlement” (Jt. Mot. at 1), they provide no factual or legal support from which the Court could itself readily make this determination. See Stovall, 117 F.3d at 1243–44 (finding a record “insufficient” to support approving a consent decree). The court therefore declines to approve the consent decree as requested. Regardless, this has no impact on the parties’ agreement between themselves and, so, as the parties request, the Court reserves jurisdiction to enforce the parties’ settlement agreement. Based on the documents presented in conjunction with the parties’ joint motion, the Court construes the parties’ filing as a stipulation of dismissal with with prejudice in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). (See Prop. Final Order, ECF No. 19-2.) The Court directs the Clerk to close this case. All pending motions, if any, are denied as moot. Done and ordered in Miami, Florida, on May 13, 2021.

dobert N. Scola, Jr. United States District Judge

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Brito v. Miami Lakes HY RE,LC, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brito-v-miami-lakes-hy-relc-flsd-2021.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack