Filed: Nov. 15, 2018
Latest Update: Nov. 15, 2018
Summary: ORDER TIMOTHY J. CORRIGAN , District Judge . This case is before the Court on the Joint Stipulation for Dismissal with Prejudice, (Doc. 43), Joint Motion for Approval and Entry of Consent Decree and to Dismiss Claims Against Defendant Wingin' It Investments Inc., with Prejudice, (Doc. 52), and Joint Motion for Approval of Settlement Agreement, (Doc. 57). On April 25, 2018, Plaintiff and Defendant Neil, Inc. filed a joint stipulation of dismissal, (Doc. 43). In it, the parties sought to ha
Summary: ORDER TIMOTHY J. CORRIGAN , District Judge . This case is before the Court on the Joint Stipulation for Dismissal with Prejudice, (Doc. 43), Joint Motion for Approval and Entry of Consent Decree and to Dismiss Claims Against Defendant Wingin' It Investments Inc., with Prejudice, (Doc. 52), and Joint Motion for Approval of Settlement Agreement, (Doc. 57). On April 25, 2018, Plaintiff and Defendant Neil, Inc. filed a joint stipulation of dismissal, (Doc. 43). In it, the parties sought to hav..
More
ORDER
TIMOTHY J. CORRIGAN, District Judge.
This case is before the Court on the Joint Stipulation for Dismissal with Prejudice, (Doc. 43), Joint Motion for Approval and Entry of Consent Decree and to Dismiss Claims Against Defendant Wingin' It Investments Inc., with Prejudice, (Doc. 52), and Joint Motion for Approval of Settlement Agreement, (Doc. 57).
On April 25, 2018, Plaintiff and Defendant Neil, Inc. filed a joint stipulation of dismissal, (Doc. 43). In it, the parties sought to have the Court retain jurisdiction to enforce the parties' settlement agreement. (Doc. 43 at 2). Refusing to enforce an agreement it has not reviewed, the Court entered an endorsed order on April 26, 2018, requiring the parties to file the proposed settlement agreement not later than May 11, 2018. (Doc. 44). To date, the parties have not complied with this order, and the case against Neil, Inc. remains pending.
Plaintiff has also agreed to settle with Defendant Wingin' It Investments, and they seek Court approval of their Consent Decree. (Docs. 52; 52-1). However, the Consent Decree is replete with errors, contradictions, incomplete sentences, and incorrect citations. As such, the Court refuses to approve it as written. Instead, in an attempt to determine the appropriate course of action, the Court will hold a hearing.
Most recently, Plaintiff has reached a settlement with Defendant Gateway Retail Center, LLC. (Doc. 57). The parties have asked the Court to "review, approve and ratify the Settlement Agreement[,]" retain jurisdiction to enforce the agreement, and dismiss the action with prejudice. (Doc. 57). 1 However, this agreement raises questions concerning the merits of the dispute (Gateway denies liability, but the agreement states that the modifications will bring the premises within ADA compliance), and the money that is exchanging hands (the agreement purports to be dividing a confidential amount between Plaintiff, his lawyers, and his experts). See generally In re: ADA Cases, 6:18-mc-14-Orl-31DCI
Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED:
1. This case is hereby SET for HEARING on January 3, 2019 at 10:00 a.m. before the undersigned, in the United States Courthouse, Courtroom 10D, 300 North Hogan Street, Jacksonville, Florida.2 Counsel for all parties are required to attend in person.
2. In light of their apparent settlement, Defendant Gateway Retail Center, LLC's Motion for Further Extension of Expert Rebuttal Report Deadline is DENIED as MOOT.
