Hunt v. South Carolina State Housing Finance and Development Authority
Opinion
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA COLUMBIA DIVISION
Ethel R. Hunt, ) ) C/A 3:18-02682-JMC Plaintiff, ) ) ORDER OF DISMISSAL VS. ) ) Aspen Square Management, Inc., and ) Deancurt Columbia LLC DBA Legends ) at Lake Murray, ) Defendants. ) ao)
The Court having been advised by counsel for the parties that the above action has been settled, IT IS ORDERED that this action is hereby dismissed without costs and without prejudice. If settlement is not consummated within sixty (60) days, either party may petition the Court to reopen this action and restore it to the calendar. Rule 60(b)(6), F.R.Civ.P. In the alternative, to the extent permitted by law, either party may within sixty (60) days petition the Court to enforce the settlement. Fairfax Countywide Citizens v. Fairfax County, 571 F.2d 1299 (4th Cir. 1978). By agreement of the parties, the court retains jurisdiction to enforce the settlement agreement. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co., 511 U.S. 375, 381-82 (1994). The dismissal hereunder shall be with prejudice if no action is taken under either alternative within sixty (60) days from the filing date of this order. IT IS SO ORDERED.
J. MICHELLE CHILDS United States District Judge September 13, 2021 Columbia, South Carolina
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Hunt v. South Carolina State Housing Finance and Development Authority (Hunt v. South Carolina State Housing Finance and Development Authority) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.