BANK OF NOVA SCOTIA v. Samuels et al
DISTRICT COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS DIVISION OF ST. THOMAS AND ST. JOHN BANK OF NOVA SCOTIA, Plaintiff, v. GLORIA SAMUELS; THE ESTATE OF FREDERICK SAMUELS, all unknown Heirs of Frederick Samuels and all other Persons claiming any right, title, estate, lien, or interest in Parcel Nos. 5E and 5Ei Estate Pastory, No. 5 Cruz Bay Quarter, St. John, U.S. Virgin Islands; and WELLS FARGO BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) Civil No. 2018-05 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) GLORIA SAMUELS, Counterclaimant, v. BANK OF NOVA SCOTIA, Counter-defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) THE ESTATE OF FREDERICK SAMUELS, Counterclaimant, v. BANK OF NOVA SCOTIA, Counter-defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case: 3:18-cv-00005-CVG-RM Document #: 63 Filed: 02/26/20 Page 1 of 3 Bank of Nova Scotia v. Samuels et al. Civ. No. 18-05 Order ATTORNEYS: Matthew J. Duensing Law Offices Duensing & Casner St. Thomas, VI For the plaintiff and counter defendant Bank of Nova Scotia, Marie E. Thomas-Griffith Samuel H. Hall , Jr. Hall & Griffith, P.C. St. …
Download the original document · Plain text (TXT) · Browse the archive · How this archive works
Original source: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-vid-3_18-cv-00005/pdf/USCOURTS-vid-3_18-cv-00005-0.pdf
SHA-256 9a94fa9c28670189300bef2a6eb77f431b5ee9bf723f3f3f03edaeb44c92b7b3
Re-using this document
two independent grounds: a work of the United States Government under 17 USC 105, AND a judicial opinion, which is an edict of government and uncopyrightable by anyone including the court that wrote it
Our description, tagging, arrangement, extracted text and machine transcripts are released under CC0 1.0. We assert nothing about the document itself.
Archive identifier LF-9a94fa9c2867
Document text
DISTRICT COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS DIVISION OF ST. THOMAS AND ST. JOHN BANK OF NOVA SCOTIA, Plaintiff, v. GLORIA SAMUELS; THE ESTATE OF FREDERICK SAMUELS, all unknown Heirs of Frederick Samuels and all other Persons claiming any right, title, estate, lien, or interest in Parcel Nos. 5E and 5Ei Estate Pastory, No. 5 Cruz Bay Quarter, St. John, U.S. Virgin Islands; and WELLS FARGO BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) Civil No. 2018-05 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) GLORIA SAMUELS, Counterclaimant, v. BANK OF NOVA SCOTIA, Counter-defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) THE ESTATE OF FREDERICK SAMUELS, Counterclaimant, v. BANK OF NOVA SCOTIA, Counter-defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case: 3:18-cv-00005-CVG-RM Document #: 63 Filed: 02/26/20 Page 1 of 3 Bank of Nova Scotia v. Samuels et al. Civ. No. 18-05 Order ATTORNEYS: Matthew J. Duensing Law Offices Duensing & Casner St. Thomas, VI For the plaintiff and counter defendant Bank of Nova Scotia, Marie E. Thomas-Griffith Samuel H. Hall , Jr. Hall & Griffith, P.C. St. Thomas, VI For the defendants and counterclaimants Gloria Samuels and the Estate of Frederick Samuels. ORDER GÓMEZ, J. On February 26, 2020, Bank of Nova Scotia (“BNS”) filed a document titled “Stipulation for Dismissal with Prejudice.” See Stipulation for Dismissal with Prejudice, ECF No. 62. That document is signed by counsel for all parties who have appeared in this matter--BNS, Gloria Samuels, and the Estate of Frederick Samuels. In that document, the parties advise the Court that they entered a settlement agreement resolving all claims. As such, there is no case or controversy before the Court. Additionally, the parties purport to stipulate that the Court shall retain jurisdiction for a period of sixty days to enforce the settlement agreement. “[W]hen . . . [a] dismissal is pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)[(A)](ii) . . . the court is authorized to embody the settlement contract in its dismissal order (or, what has the same effect, retain jurisdiction over the Case: 3:18-cv-00005-CVG-RM Document #: 63 Filed: 02/26/20 Page 2 of 3 Bank of Nova Scotia v. Samuels et al. Civ. No. 18-05 Order settlement contract) if the parties agree.” Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 381-82 (1994). “Absent such action, however, enforcement of the settlement agreement is for state courts, unless there is some independent basis for federal jurisdiction.” Id. at 382. As such, the Court construes the parties’ stipulation as a request for the Court to enter an order dismissing this matter while retaining jurisdiction for a period of sixty days to enforce the settlement agreement. The premises considered, it is hereby ORDERED that this case is DISMISSED with prejudice; it is further ORDERED that the trial setting in this matter is VACATED; it is further ORDERED that all pending motions are MOOT; it is further ORDERED that the Court shall retain jurisdiction in this matter for a period of sixty days to enforce the settlement agreement between the parties; and it is further ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall CLOSE this case. S\_____________________ Curtis V. Gómez District Judge Case: 3:18-cv-00005-CVG-RM Document #: 63 Filed: 02/26/20 Page 3 of 3