CHEP USA v. A-1 PALLET CO. OF CLARKSVILLE, INC.
Filing
59
ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE JOINT MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT - The Parties' Joint Motion fails to address any of the relevant factors and, thus, is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. [Dkt. 58 ]. No later than November 12, 2024, th e Parties are ORDERED to file a joint brief in support of the proposed consent judgment explaining how it meets the factors discussed herein. A reasonable extension of time from this deadline may be sought if necessary. (See Order.) Signed by Magistrate Judge Kellie M. Barr on 10/22/2024. (JSR)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
NEW ALBANY DIVISION
CHEP USA,
Plaintiff,
v.
A-1 PALLET CO. OF CLARKSVILLE, INC.,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
No. 4:24-cv-00025-KMB-SEB
ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE
JOINT MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
Pending before the Court is the Parties' Joint Motion for Approval of Settlement Agreement
and Mutual Release and Entry of Consent Judgment. [Dkt. 58.] Plaintiff CHEP USA ("CHEP")
brought this action against Defendant A-1 Pallet Co. of Clarksville, Inc. ("A-1 Pallet"), for
conversion and breach of contract and sought declaratory judgment under 28 U.S.C. § 2201. [Dkt.
1.] Following a Settlement Conference with the Court, the Parties ultimately executed a settlement
agreement that they now ask the Court to approve. [Dkt. 58.] For the reasons discussed below,
the Parties' Joint Motion is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
Generally, parties are free to enter into a settlement agreement and dismiss a case without
judicial approval. If the parties move for a proposed consent judgment or consent decree, however,
that asks the court to exercise federal power by having the court retain jurisdiction to enforce
compliance. As such, a consent judgment is subject to higher standards—specifically, "litigants
wishing the Court to issue a consent judgment must argue why the judgment should issue, and
cannot expect the Court unreflexively to endorse their agreement with the full authority of the
federal judiciary." Batesville Casket Co. v. Ackerman, 2024 WL 3676766, at *2 (S.D. Ind. Aug. 6,
2024) (quoting Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. Hanni, 2017 WL 6805318, at *2 (N.D. Ind. Sept. 14,
2017)).
A consent judgment must "(1) spring from and serve to resolve a dispute within the court's
subject matter jurisdiction, (2) come within the general scope of the case made by the pleadings;
and (3) further the objectives of the law upon which the complaint was based." Local No. 93, Int'l
Ass'n of Firefighters v. City of Cleveland, 478 U.S. 501, 525 (1986). If these factors are met, then
"a district court must determine whether a proposed decree is lawful, fair, reasonable, and
adequate." E.E.O.C. v. Hiram Walker & Sons, Inc., 768 F.2d 884, 889 (7th Cir. 1985); see Local
No. 93, 478 U.S. at 525 (explaining that "a federal court is more than a recorder of contracts from
whom parties can purchase injunctions.") (citation omitted).
The Parties' Joint Motion fails to address any of the relevant factors and, thus, is DENIED
WITHOUT PREJUDICE. [Dkt. 58]; see Batesville, 2024 WL 3676766 (denying a joint motion
that did not brief the factors). No later than November 12, 2024, the Parties are ORDERED to
file a joint brief in support of the proposed consent judgment explaining how it meets the factors
discussed herein. A reasonable extension of time from this deadline may be sought if necessary.
The Court encourages counsel to review State of Indiana v. Jackson Cnty. Schneck Mem'l Hosp.,
4:23-155-KMB-SEB, where the undersigned ultimately approved a joint consent judgment by the
parties in that case.
SO ORDERED.
Date: 10/22/2024
Distribution:
Registered counsel of record via Court's CM/ECF System
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?