Williams v. Digi-Key Corporation

Filing 16

ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that, on Friday, October 30, 2020 at 10:30 AM, the parties shall appear for a conference to discuss their Proposed Consent Decree. The conference will be held by telephone. The conference can be accessed by calling the Court's teleconference line at 888-278-0296 at the scheduled time. When prompted, enter Access Code 5195844. Specifically, the parties propose that "[t]he Court's jurisdiction over this matter shall continue for 36 months." Prop osed Consent Decree at 10. However, as the Court states in its Individual Rules of Practice in Civil Cases, the Court typically will not retain jurisdiction to enforce settlement agreements and further set forth in this Order. (Telephone Conference set for 10/30/2020 at 10:30 AM before Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil.) (Signed by Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil on 10/14/2020) (rro)

Case 1:20-cv-01735-MKV Document 16 Filed 10/14/20 Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

USDC SDNY
DOCUMENT
ELECTRONICALLY FILED
DOC #:
DATE FILED: 10/14/2020

PAMELA WILLIAMS,
Plaintiff,
20-cv-1735 (MKV)
-againstORDER
DIGI-KEY CORPORATION,
Defendants.
MARY KAY VYSKOCIL, United States District Judge:
The Court is in receipt of the parties’ joint request for judicial approval of their proposed
consent decree [ECF #15, 15-1 (“Proposed Consent Decree”)]. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that,
on Friday, October 30, 2020 at 10:30 AM, the parties shall appear for a conference to discuss
their Proposed Consent Decree. The conference will be held by telephone. The conference can
be accessed by calling the Court’s teleconference line at 888-278-0296 at the scheduled time.
When prompted, enter Access Code 5195844.
Specifically, the parties propose that “[t]he Court’s jurisdiction over this matter shall
continue for 36 months.” Proposed Consent Decree at 10. However, as the Court states in its
Individual Rules of Practice in Civil Cases, the Court typically will not retain jurisdiction to
enforce settlement agreements.
In their letter, the parties note that many similar cases have been resolved with similar,
judicially-approved consent decrees. However, many similar cases have also been resolved
through stipulations of voluntary dismissal, pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). See, e.g., DelOrden v. Bonobos, Inc., No. 17-cv-2744 (PAE), 2017 WL 6547902, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 20,
2017) [ECF #47]; Suvino v. Time Warner Cable, Inc., No. 16-cv-7046 (LTS), 2017 WL 3834777,
at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 31, 2017) [ECF #108]; Markett v. Five Guys Enterprises LLC, No. 17-cv-

Case 1:20-cv-01735-MKV Document 16 Filed 10/14/20 Page 2 of 2

788 (KBF), 2017 WL 5054568, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. July 21, 2017) [ECF #50]. The parties are free
to settle this case on any terms they wish, and they will be bound by the terms and conditions of
their stipulation of voluntary dismissal. 9 Wright & Miller, Federal Practice & Procedure § 2363
(3d ed. 2008).
SO ORDERED.
Date: October 14, 2020
New York, NY

_________________________________
MARY KAY VYSKOCIL
United States District Judge