Mullins v. Internal Revenue Service, 3:15-CV-106. (2018)
Court: District Court, S.D. Ohio
Number: infdco20180316g66
Visitors: 14
Filed: Mar. 15, 2018
Latest Update: Mar. 15, 2018
Summary: ORDER OF DISMISSAL: TERMINATION ENTRY THOMAS M. ROSE , District Judge . The Court having been advised that the above matter has been settled, IT IS ORDERED that this action is hereby DISMISSED, without prejudice, provided that any of the parties may, upon good cause shown within thirty (30) days, reopen the action if settlement is not consummated. Parties may submit a substitute Judgment Entry once settlement is consummated within the thirty (30) day period. Parties intending to preserve t
Summary: ORDER OF DISMISSAL: TERMINATION ENTRY THOMAS M. ROSE , District Judge . The Court having been advised that the above matter has been settled, IT IS ORDERED that this action is hereby DISMISSED, without prejudice, provided that any of the parties may, upon good cause shown within thirty (30) days, reopen the action if settlement is not consummated. Parties may submit a substitute Judgment Entry once settlement is consummated within the thirty (30) day period. Parties intending to preserve th..
More
ORDER OF DISMISSAL: TERMINATION ENTRY
THOMAS M. ROSE, District Judge.
The Court having been advised that the above matter has been settled, IT IS ORDERED that this action is hereby DISMISSED, without prejudice, provided that any of the parties may, upon good cause shown within thirty (30) days, reopen the action if settlement is not consummated.
Parties may submit a substitute Judgment Entry once settlement is consummated within the thirty (30) day period. Parties intending to preserve this Court's jurisdiction to enforce the settlement should be aware of Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of America, 114 S.Ct. 1673 (1994), and incorporate appropriate language in any substituted judgment entry. The Court will retain jurisdiction to enforce the terms of the settlement between the parties, if necessary.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
