Case Activity (93)

1. Order | Filed: January 27, 2017 | Entered: January 27, 2017 Parshall, Paul v. Anchor BanCorp Wisconsin, Inc. et al

   Securities/Commodities | Wisconsin Western

   Text Only Order

   ** TEXT ONLY ORDER **
   The parties stipulated to dismiss this case with prejudice, Dkt. 14 , and on August 29, 2016, the court did so, Dkt. 15 . The court stated that it would entertain motions for fees or expenses if any were filed, but it did not "retain jurisdiction" to adjudicate potential fee disputes. Dismissal with prejudice is inconsistent with retaining jurisdiction, because "when a suit is dismissed with prejudice, it is gone, and the district court cannot adjudicate disputes arising out of the settlement that led to the dismissal merely by stating that it is retaining jurisdiction." Dupuy v. McEwen, 495 F.3d 807, 809 (7th Cir. 2007). Today the parties filed a new settlement agreement (addressing claims for fees, expenses, and costs), and they ask the court to "close and terminate the action." Dkt. 17 . I doubt that I would have jurisdiction to consider a motion for fees after the deadline set in Rule 54(d)(2)(B) has passed. But the point is academic because the parties have reached agreement. The case is now definitively dismissed with prejudice, if not as a result of the court's earlier order, then by virtue of the stipulation incorporated in the settlement agreement. The stipulation of dismissal is self executing under Rule 41, so no further order need issue.. Signed by District Judge James D. Peterson on 1/27/2017. (kwf)

2. Motion | Filed: January 27, 2017 | Entered: January 27, 2017 Parshall, Paul v. Anchor BanCorp Wisconsin, Inc. et al

   Securities/Commodities | Wisconsin Western

   Stipulation of Dismissal

   STIPULATION of Dismissal -Stipulation and Order Closing and Terminating the Action (Imfeld, Nathan)

3. 91 additional result(s)