McCray v. County of Orange
688 F. App'x 74
| 2d Cir. | 2017Background
- Plaintiff Cerious McCray (pro se) sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claiming constitutional violations during two traffic stops.
- Several defendants were dismissed; the remaining parties announced an oral settlement in court and the district court entered judgment reflecting that settlement on October 20, 2015.
- After the court-ordered dismissal, McCray sought additional monetary relief and opposed enforcement of the oral settlement.
- Defendants moved to enforce the oral settlement; the district court granted the motion and entered an order enforcing the agreement on December 3, 2015.
- McCray appealed; the Court of Appeals held his appeal from the October 20 judgment was untimely and dismissed that appeal, but concluded it had jurisdiction to review the December 3 order enforcing the settlement.
- The Second Circuit affirmed the district court’s enforcement order, concluding the parties intended to be bound by the oral agreement and the district court had jurisdiction to enforce it.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether McCray’s appeal from the October 20, 2015 judgment was timely | McCray did not timely appeal the October judgment but sought extension | Defendants argued the appeal was untimely under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1) | Appeal from October 20 judgment was untimely and dismissed |
| Whether the district court properly enforced an oral settlement announced in open court | McCray argued he was not bound and later sought more money | Defendants argued the oral stipulation on the record was binding | Court held the oral, on-the-record settlement was voluntary, clear, and binding |
| Whether the appeal from the district court’s order enforcing the settlement was ripe and reviewable | McCray appealed the enforcement order (initially premature) | Defendants argued the enforcement order was reviewable once the settlement was so-ordered | The premature notice ripened into a valid appeal under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(2) and was reviewable |
| Whether the district court had jurisdiction to enforce the settlement | McCray contested enforcement jurisdiction | Defendants asserted the court retained jurisdiction because it incorporated settlement terms into dismissal | Court held it had jurisdiction to enforce the settlement under Kokkonen because terms were incorporated into the dismissal |
Key Cases Cited
- Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205 (timeliness of appeals governed strictly by Rule 4)
- Zeno v. Pine Plains Cent. Sch. Dist., 702 F.3d 655 (2d Cir. 2012) (premature notices can ripen under Rule 4(a)(2))
- Powell v. Omnicom, 497 F.3d 124 (2d Cir. 2007) (standard of review for enforcement of settlements)
- Ciaramella v. Reader’s Digest Ass’n, Inc., 131 F.3d 320 (2d Cir. 1997) (factual findings about assent reviewed for clear error)
- Role v. Eureka Lodge No. 434, 402 F.3d 314 (2d Cir. 2005) (on-the-record stipulations of dismissal are enforceable without writing)
- Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375 (district court jurisdiction to enforce settlement when terms are incorporated)
- LoSacco v. City of Middletown, 71 F.3d 88 (2d Cir. 1995) (issues not briefed on appeal are considered abandoned)