THE FOONT LAW FIRM, BRIAN E. FOONT, ESQ., Counsel for Plaintiff, Potomac, MD, CONDON & FORSYTH LLP, JOHN MAGGIO, ESQ., Co-Counsel for Plaintiff, New York, NY.
GANZ WOLKENBREIT & SIEGFELD LLP, ROBERT E. GANZ, ESQ., Counsel for Defendant, Albany, NY.
DECISION and ORDER
GLEN T. SUDDABY, District Judge.
Currently before the Court, in this diversity action filed by Aveos Fleet Performance Inc. ("Plaintiff") (Dkt. No. 28) against Vision Airlines, Inc. ("Defendant") asserting a claim of breach of contract, is Plaintiff's motion to voluntarily dismiss its Complaint and retain jurisdiction to enforce the parties' settlement agreement, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(a)(2). (Dkt. No. 57.) For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiff's motion is granted.
I. RELEVANT BACKGROUND
A. Plaintiff's Complaint
Generally, liberally construed, Plaintiff's Complaint alleges that, because Defendant breached the terms of its Engine Technical Services Agreement with Plaintiff, Plaintiff is entitled to damages of $3, 959, 256.49, plus interest through the date payment is made in accordance with the Agreement, as well as prejudgment interest and costs. (Dkt. No. 1, Attach. 1.)
B. Relevant Procedural History
By Text Order dated July 3, 2013, the Court directed the parties to submit to, and complete, mediation by October 31, 2013. (Dkt. No. 48.)
On October 21, 2013, the parties submitted to mediation before an agreed-upon mediator, Daniel J. Hurteau, Esq., of Nixon Peabody, in Albany, New York. (Dkt. No. 48; Dkt. No. 49; Dkt. No. 60, at ¶ 5.) The mediation was attended by Mr. Brian Foont, co-counsel for Plaintiff. (Dkt. No. 60, at ¶ 6.) The mediation was also attended by Defendant's Vice President of Maintenance, Mike Smith. (Dkt. No. 52; Dkt. No. 60, at ¶ 6; Dkt. No. 60, Attach. 1, at 4.) Both Mr. Foont and Mr. Smith represented that they had unfettered authority to settle the case, in accordance with Local Rule 83.11-5(b). (Dkt. No. 60, at ¶ 6; Dkt. No. 71.) After approximately six hours of uninterrupted mediation, the parties agreed upon the terms of settlement of this litigation and executed a settlement agreement. (Dkt. No. 60, at ¶ 7; Dkt. No. 58, Attach. 1.)
In pertinent part, the settlement agreement provided as follows:
a. Defendant was to pay Plaintiff $50, 000 by October 31, 2013. (Dkt. No. 58, Attach. 1, at ¶ 1.)
b. Defendant was to conduct an inspection of the parts and engines that are the subject of this action by November 6, 2013, to determine if they have sustained any material damage since they were last inspected in July of 2013. ( Id. at ¶ 2.) If Defendant notified Plaintiff of a material defect by close of business November 6, 2013, the settlement agreement would be void; otherwise, the settlement agreement would be fully effective. ( Id. at ¶ 2.)
c. If there was no material defect observed, Defendant agreed to pay Plaintiff $150, 000 by November 8, 2013, after which Defendant was to take possession of the parts as well as a white packaged JT9D engine labeled VS4A by November 11, 2013. ( Id. at ¶ 3.) If the payment was not made by November 11, 2013, Defendant ...