Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca2-14-02020/USCOURTS-ca2-14-02020-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 

---

1 DRONEY, Circuit Judge, dissenting:

2 I respectfully dissent from that portion of the majority’s

3 opinion which vacates the district court’s dismissal of Hoefer’s

4 action with prejudice. It was not an abuse of discretion for the

5 district court to refuse to reopen the case over four months after it

6 was reported settled and 69 days after the settlement deadline had

7 passed.  

8 This case is readily distinguishable from Muze, Inc. v. Digital

9 on Demand, Inc., 356 F.3d 492 (2d Cir. 2004). In Muze, like here, the

10 district court set a time period (in Muze, thirty days, while here sixty

11 days) for a case that had been reported settled to finalize the

12 settlement. Also, like in Muze, the district court did not specify in its

13 order that any reinstatement must be sought within the same period.

14 In Muze, we held, “Of course, the lack of a deadline for a

15 reinstatement request does not mean that either party had an

16 unlimited time for seeking reinstatement. The omission of a time

Case 14-2020, Document 75, 04/14/2016, 1749971, Page1 of 4
2

1 limit . . . means that [the reinstatement request must be made]

2 within a reasonable time.” Id. at 495. In Muze, the plaintiff sought

3 reinstatement only six days after the expiration of the last period

4 allowed by the district court for finalizing the settlement but the

5 district court refused to reopen the case.  Muze does not hold that a

6 plaintiff who waits over two months to seek to reinstate an action

7 from the last period allowed for finalizing the settlement has acted

8 within a reasonable time.  

9 Muze does not indicate how much more than six days would

10 constitute a reasonable period for seeking reinstatement. But we

11 must allow the district courts some discretion in evaluating the

12 timeliness of such requests, particularly given that the circumstances

13 of each request and each case will vary. It can hardly be an abuse of

14 discretion by the district court to not reopen a case where the court

15 gives a considerable period of time to complete settlement—here,

16 sixty days—and the first indication that settlement has not occurred

Case 14-2020, Document 75, 04/14/2016, 1749971, Page2 of 4
3

1 and that reinstatement is sought comes more than four months after

2 the initial order of the court and two months after the expiration of

3 that order.  

4 The majority points to the lack of prejudice to defendants as a

5 result of Hoefer’s delay. But even if prejudice were an appropriate

6 consideration—one not identified as such in Muze—it must be

7 balanced against Hoefer’s failure, at any point prior to the August 30

8 letter, to notify the court that settlement had not been finalized. In

9 his August 30 letter to the district court, Hoefer stated that “several

10 weeks after we reached a global settlement, . . . one of the

11 defendants . . . was refusing to go along with the settlement.” J.A.

12 507. Hoefer was thus well aware that the settlement was, at best,

13 unlikely with respect to certain defendants, yet failed to timely

14 notify the court.  

15 Because Muze mandates that a party must act “within a

16 reasonable time” when the district court has not set a deadline for

Case 14-2020, Document 75, 04/14/2016, 1749971, Page3 of 4
4

1 seeking reinstatement and Hoefer has introduced no real

2 justifications to support his delay, I cannot find that the district court

3 abused its discretion in finding that delay unreasonable. To be sure,

4 it would be better practice for the district courts to specify a time

5 period within which to move for reinstatement of the action. See, e.g.,

6 Storey v. Cello Holdings, L.L.C., 347 F.3d 370, 375 (2d Cir. 2003) (30‐

7 day order of dismissal included language that if settlement was not

8 consummated within thirty days of the order “either party may

9 apply by letter within the 30‐day period for restoration of the action

10 to the calendar”). But without such a specific deadline, this Court’s

11 decision is guided by Muze, which holds only that the delay in

12 seeking reinstatement must be reasonable. Hoefer’s delay here,

13 particularly given his early knowledge of the breakdown in

14 settlement negotiations, was not reasonable.  

15 I would affirm the decision of the district court.

16

Case 14-2020, Document 75, 04/14/2016, 1749971, Page4 of 4