Longhini v. 18335 NW 27 Ave LLC

S.D. Florida

Longhini v. 18335 NW 27 Ave LLC

DecidedMarch 15, 2021

Docket1:20-cv-21514

StatusUnknown

This text of Longhini v. 18335 NW 27 Ave LLC (Longhini v. 18335 NW 27 Ave LLC) 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

Longhini v. 18335 NW 27 Ave LLC, (S.D. Fla. 2021).

Pincite

Opinion

United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida

Doug Longhini, Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. 20-21514-Civ-Scola ) 18335 NW 27 Ave LLC and JJ&J ) Family Food Corp., Defendants. ) Order of Dismissal The Court grants in part and denies in part the parties’ joint motion for approval and entry of the parties’ consent decree and to dismiss this case with prejudice (ECF No 56). The Court acknowledges the parties have dismissed this case with prejudice in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) and therefore grants the parties’ request that the Court dismiss this case. On the other hand, the Court denies the parties’ request to “review, approve, and ratify” 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.” Id. While the parties “agree and submit that the . . . Consent Decree is fundamentally fair, adequate and reasonable,” they provide scant factual and legal support from which the Court could itself readily make this determination. See id. (finding a record “insufficient” to support approving a consent decree). The court therefore declines to “approve and ratify” 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. 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 March 11, 2021.

Robert 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

Doug Longhini, Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. 20-21514-Civ-Scola ) 18335 NW 27 Ave LLC and JJ&J ) Family Food Corp., Defendants. ) Order of Dismissal The Court grants in part and denies in part the parties’ joint motion for approval and entry of the parties’ consent decree and to dismiss this case with prejudice (ECF No 56). The Court acknowledges the parties have dismissed this case with prejudice in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) and therefore grants the parties’ request that the Court dismiss this case. On the other hand, the Court denies the parties’ request to “review, approve, and ratify” 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.” Id. While the parties “agree and submit that the . . . Consent Decree is fundamentally fair, adequate and reasonable,” they provide scant factual and legal support from which the Court could itself readily make this determination. See id. (finding a record “insufficient” to support approving a consent decree). The court therefore declines to “approve and ratify” 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. 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 March 11, 2021.

Robert N. Scola, Jr. United States District Judge

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Longhini v. 18335 NW 27 Ave LLC, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/longhini-v-18335-nw-27-ave-llc-flsd-2021.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack