Robert Youngs Pelgrift, Jr. and Susan Curtis Pelgrift v. CitiMortgage, Inc., Stephen Keyes, Kristen Keyes, William Page, Lisa Page, Town of Greenwich, Patricia Sesto, Beth Evans, Juan Paredes, and Jodi Couture

Summary

The United States District Court for the District of Connecticut addresses defendants’ joint motion concerning enforcement and entry of judgment on a settlement reached during a judicial settlement conference. The court discusses the effect of a pending appeal, the limited purpose of an administrative closeout order, confidentiality of the settlement transcript, and plaintiffs’ request to file a sur-reply. The motion for judgment order was terminated with the right to reclaim if the Second Circuit remands the case, and the motion to file a sur-reply was denied.

Holdings

1. When a district court is inclined to grant a motion but is constrained from doing so by a pending appeal, it may indicate its intention to grant the motion so that the movant can seek a limited remand from the court of appeals under the Toliver procedure. Because the appeal was pending, the court terminated the present motion with the right to reclaim it if the Second Circuit remanded for the limited purpose of issuing an advisory opinion.
2. The sixty-day period in the administrative closeout order was not a period during which the Pelgrifts could reconsider or repudiate the settlement.
3. The court denied plaintiffs' request to unseal or publicly disclose the August 6, 2025 settlement-conference transcript.
4. A sur-reply is appropriate only in an exceptional case when the reply raises new, material issues, and plaintiffs' motion was properly denied because their proposed sur-reply repeated arguments already presented and did not establish good cause.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the district court could act on defendants' motion concerning enforcement and memorialization of the settlement while plaintiffs' appeal was pending.
2. Whether the sixty-day administrative closeout period under Local Rule 41(b) permitted plaintiffs to withdraw from or repudiate the settlement.
3. Whether the court should unseal or otherwise provide public access to the sealed settlement-conference transcript.
4. Whether plaintiffs demonstrated good cause to file a sur-reply.

Disposition

other