govinfo:USCOURTS-ctd-3_24-cv-00474-2

Corpus: 543,223 opinions · 3,177 judges · newest 2026-06-23 · expanding Coverage ↗

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT

ROBERT YOUNGS PELGRIFT, JR., :
SUSAN CURTIS PELGRIFT :
Plaintiff, :
:
v. :
:
CITIMORTGAGE, INC., : CIVIL CASE NO
STEPHEN KEYES, : 3:24-CV-00474 (JCH)
KRISTEN KEYES, :
WILLIAM PAGE, :
LISA PAGE, :
TOWN OF GREENWICH, : APRIL 21, 2026
PATRICIA SESTO, :
BETH EVANS, :
JUAN PAREDES, :
JODI COUTURE, :
Defendant. :

RULING ON DEFENDANTS’ JOINT MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ORDER (DOC. NO.
188)1

I. INTRODUCTION
Pursuant to Rule 58(a), the defendants, Town of Greenwich, Beth Evans, Patricia
Sesto, Juan Paredes and Jodi Couture (collectively the “Town Defendants”),
CitiMortgage, Inc. (“CMI”), Stephen and Kristen Keyes (“the Keyes Defendants”), and
William and Lisa Page (“the Page Defendants”), have filed a Motion seeking an order of
the court to enter judgment reflecting that: (1) the settlement reached between the
parties during a judicial settlement conference before Magistrate Judge Vatti and
canvassed on the record on August 6, 2025, is a binding, enforceable
settlement agreement between the parties; (2) the unsigned Settlement Agreement
attached as Exhibit A to their Motion, reflects and memorializes the settlement

1 This Ruling is amended solely to correct a typographical error appearing in the date of signing
by the court. The content of this Ruling remains unaltered in all other respects.
Case 3:24-cv-00474-JCH Document 196 Filed 04/21/26 Page 1 of 8

agreement between the parties canvassed on the record on August 6, 2025, and
reflects a binding, enforceable settlement agreement between the parties, which
agreement called for dismissal of all claims, a release of any and all claims that were
brought or could have been brought in this action; and (3) a failure to comply with the
settlement agreement is enforceable by a post-judgment motion for contempt. (“Mot.
Judgment Order”) (Doc. No. 188).
Plaintiffs Robert Youngs Pelgrift, Jr. and Susan Curtis Pelgrift (“Pelgrifts”)
opposed the defendants’ Motion and objected to the jurisdiction of the District Court of
Connecticut to grant defendants’ Motion. (“Pelgrifts’ Opp’n”) (Doc. No. 189). The
defendants submitted a Reply in support of their Motion. (“Reply”) (Doc. No. 190).
II. BACKGROUND
The court is intimately familiar with the background of the case. It will address in
this Ruling only the matters occurring around and following the settlement agreement
placed on the record on August 6, 2025. On August 6, 2025, after multiple settlement
conferences, the parties appeared before Magistrate Judge Vatti and reached a full and
final settlement of all claims brought or that could have been brought in this action. See
Joint Mot. Enforce at 2. Magistrate Judge Vatti then read the terms of the parties’
agreement into the record. Id. Magistrate Judge Vatti explicitly inquired of the Pelgrifts,
individually: (1) whether they each understood the terms of the settlement he had just
read into the record; (2) whether they each had been provided sufficient time to
consider the terms of the settlement agreement; (3) whether they each understood that
acceptance of the terms of the settlement agreement would be final, and that they could
not come back and change their mind at some later time; and (4) with that
understanding, whether they each accepted the terms of the settlement. Id., citing
Case 3:24-cv-00474-JCH Document 196 Filed 04/21/26 Page 2 of 8

Transcript (“Tr. 2”) (Aug. 6) at 13:16-14:23 (Doc. No. 173).2 The Pelgrifts separately
said yes to each of those inquiries. Id. Magistrate Judge Vatti read the terms of the
Agreement into the record and canvassed the parties to confirm they understood and
voluntarily agreed to those terms, and they could not later change their mind. Id. The
court ordered the Clerk to close the file administratively without prejudice to the Town of
Greenwich to reopen on or before October 6, 2025. (Doc. 163).3 A written settlement
agreement (Settlement Agreement”), the terms of which reflected the terms agreed to
and canvased on August 6, 2025, was prepared and provided to the plaintiffs on August
18, 2025.
On September 5, 2025, Magistrate Judge Vatti held a telephonic status
conference in which he reported to the defendants that the plaintiffs had advised him on
September 2, 2025, that they no longer wished to proceed with the settlement. See
Memorandum of Status Conference (Doc. No. 169). On September 23, 2025, the
defendants filed their Joint Motion to Reopen Action for Limited Purpose of Enforcing
Settlement Agreement. (Doc. No. 172). On October 6, plaintiffs filed their Objection to
defendants’ motion (Doc. No. 175) and their own Motion to Reopen Case and Restore it
to Docket, with a supporting Memorandum of Law. (Doc. Nos. 176 and 176-1). On
December 22, 2025, the court ruled on Defendants’ Joint Motion to Reopen and
Plaintiff’s Motion to Reopen/Restore Case to the Docket (Doc. No. 184), in which the

2 There were two sessions on the record, with all parties, on August 6, 2025. In the first session,
the court reviewed the terms with the Pelgrifts, who each acknowledged an understanding and
acceptance of the terms of the settlement. See Transcript 1 (“Tr.1”) (Aug. 6, 2025) at 5:11−6:20. In the
second session, the court clarified details of the settlement, provided an opportunity for objections, and
then reviewed again the settlement terms with the Pelgrifts, who again each acknowledged an
understanding and acceptance of the terms. See Transcript 2 (“Tr.2”) (Aug. 6, 2025) at 13:4−14:25.

3 See, infra, Part III. B-C.
Case 3:24-cv-00474-JCH Document 196 Filed 04/21/26 Page 3 of 8

court granted the defendants’ Motion to Reopen the case and enforce the Settlement
Agreement and denied plaintiff’s Motion.
III. LEGAL STANDARD AND DISCUSSION
A. This Court Has Authority to Act Under the Toliver Procedure
The Pelgrifts contend that the final judgment rule deprives this court of
jurisdiction to act on the pending motion while their appeal is pending before the Second
Circuit. See Pelgrifts’ Opp’n at 2-3. They argue that the court's only available options
are to deny the Motion or decline to address it on jurisdictional grounds. Id. at 4-5.
Their argument is incorrect.
The Second Circuit has expressly recognized a third procedural path applicable
to this circumstance. Where a district court is inclined to grant a motion but is
constrained from doing so by reason of a pending appeal, the court may indicate its
intention to grant the motion, upon which the movant may then apply to the Court of
Appeals for a limited remand to permit the district court to so act. See Toliver v. County
of Sullivan, 957 F.2d 47, 49 (2d Cir. 1992); accord Acadian Diagnostic Labs., L.L.C. v.
Quality Toxicology, L.L.C., 965 F.3d 404, 415 (5th Cir. 2020) (recognizing this
procedure as having been established for nearly seven decades). This court proceeds
under the well-established framework outlined in Toliver.
B. The Court's Local Rule 41(b) Administrative Closeout Order Did Not
Authorize the Pelgrifts to Repudiate Their Settlement
The Pelgrifts argue that the court's Local Rule 41(b) Order providing a 60-day
period to reopen this matter (Doc. 163) constituted notice to them that they were free to
withdraw from the settlement within that period. Their argument is contradicted by the
clear record.
Case 3:24-cv-00474-JCH Document 196 Filed 04/21/26 Page 4 of 8

First, the argument is incompatible with the Pelgrifts' own sworn statements
made on the record on August 6, 2025. Magistrate Judge Vatti expressly informed the
Pelgrifts that this agreement was final, and they could not return to court at a later time
to reconsider. See Transcript (“Tr. 2”) (Aug. 6) at 13:16-14:23 (Doc. No. 173); see also
Transcript 1 (“Tr.1”) (Aug. 6, 2025) at 5:11−6:20. Both plaintiffs individually stated that
they understood and accepted that condition. Id.
Second, neither plaintiff requested additional time to consider the terms of the
settlement on the record at the August 6 conference. Id.
Third, the record makes clear that the 60-day period served a specific and limited
purpose: to allow the Town of Greenwich (“Town”) time to complete its mandatory
municipal approval process before formally memorializing its participation in the
settlement. See Tr. 1 at 9:5-15. Magistrate Judge Vatti expressly noted that the Town's
financial contribution was contingent upon municipal approval.4 Id. The Town's outside
counsel disclosed during the conference that multiple boards and a representative town
meeting would be required to formally approve the settlement, and counsel confirmed
that both outside counsel and the Corporation Counsel would recommend approval.
See Tr. 2 at 16:10–17:1. Magistrate Judge Vatti, after consulting with the Town's
counsel on the record regarding the time reasonably needed for that process,
recommended the 60-day period and anticipated the court would issue its standard
administrative closeout order. Id. at 17:2–13.5

4 See Town of Greenwich Charter § 30(c) (requiring board recommendation and Representative
Town Meeting approval for unappropriated expenditures exceeding $5,000).

5 The agreement is binding on all parties, with one contingency depending only on the Town of
Greenwich, as a public government cooperative, obtaining final approval by its Board Members. Failure
to obtain approval by the Town would allow it to withdraw, thus preventing the settlement; if approved,
the agreement continued as final and binding.
Case 3:24-cv-00474-JCH Document 196 Filed 04/21/26 Page 5 of 8

The 60-day window was intended solely to accommodate the Town's
governmental approval process, not to provide all parties with a period for
reconsideration or an opportunity to repudiate a settlement that had already been
agreed to on the record.
C. The Pelgrifts' Request to "Unlock" the Settlement Conference Transcript Is
Denied
The Pelgrifts request that this court unseal the transcript of the August 6, 2025,
settlement conference on the grounds that the public should be able to access all
specific terms of the agreement. See Pelgrifts’ Opp’n at 8. The court denies their
request.
At the conclusion of the August 6 settlement conference, Magistrate Judge Vatti
stated on the record that the written settlement agreement would include a
confidentiality provision precluding the Pelgrifts from disclosing the terms to any third
parties. See Tr. 2 at 6:16–25. The Pelgrifts agreed to all of the terms, including that
provision. Id. at 13:16–14:23. The transcript was placed under seal by Order of
Magistrate Judge Vatti to preserve the confidentiality of the settlement process, a
restriction to which the Pelgrifts themselves expressly agreed. Id. It is well established
that parties to a settlement may agree to keep its terms confidential. See Gambale v.
Deutsche Bank AG, 377 F.3d 133, 143 (2d Cir. 2004).
The court notes that the Pelgrifts' concern about completing the record on appeal
is misplaced. The transcript already exists as an official court record. See generally
Transcript of Proceeding: Hearing Settlement Agreement Canvas (Doc. Nos. 171, 173).
This court, the Second Circuit, and all parties have access to the transcript. Only public
access has been restricted.
Case 3:24-cv-00474-JCH Document 196 Filed 04/21/26 Page 6 of 8

The Pelgrifts' suggestion that the settlement amount is "of central importance" to
their pending appeal, and must therefore be made public, is premised on the legally
incorrect assumption that they retain the right to challenge the adequacy of a settlement
to which they freely and knowingly agreed on the record before the court, following
express admonitions that such agreement was final and binding. Putting that aside, the
amount will be known to the Court hearing the appeal and the parties participating in it.
IV. MOTION FOR PLAINTIFFS TO FILE A SUR-REPLY
The Pelgrifts filed a Motion to Permit the plaintiffs to File a Sur-Reply. (Doc. No.
191). Their Motion and Memoranda in support repeats arguments already argued and
considered by this court. Local Civil Rule 7(d) provides: “No sur-replies may be filed
without permission of this Court, which may, in its discretion, grant permission upon a
showing of good cause.” If a court has not ordered further briefing, “[s]ur-replies are
appropriate only in the exceptional though rare case” where “a party demonstrates to
the court that papers to which it seeks to file a reply raise new issues which are material
to the disposition of the question before the court.” See Sec. & Exch. Comm'n v. Xia,
No. 21-CV-5350 (PKC) (RER), 2022 WL 2784871, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. July 15, 2022)
(internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The Second Circuit recognizes the
district court's power to strike an unauthorized sur-reply. See Laguerre v. Nat'l Grid
USA, No. 20-3901-cv, 2022 WL 728819, at *5 n. 7 (2d Cir. Mar. 11, 2022) (summary
order).
In their Sur-Reply filed with their Motion to File a Sur-Reply the Pelgrifts advance
the same general arguments already presented in their opposition memorandum,
including but not limited to, (1) the lack of jurisdiction of the district court, (2) the
plaintiffs’ belief they could withdraw within 60 days from the settlement, and (3) the un-
Case 3:24-cv-00474-JCH Document 196 Filed 04/21/26 Page 7 of 8

redacting details of the settlement. These arguments do not satisfy a showing of good
cause: these arguments were already addressed in the plaintiffs’ Opposition. The
Motion to file a sur-reply is denied.
V. CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated, the defendants’ Joint Motion for Judgment Order (Doc.
No. 188) is terminated with the right to reclaim if the Court of Appeals remands the case
for the limited purpose of issuing an advisory opinion.6 The plaintiffs’ Motion to Permit
the Plaintiffs to File a Sur-Reply. (Doc. No. 191) is denied.
SO ORDERED.
Dated at New Haven, Connecticut this 21st day of April 2026.

/s/ Janet C. Hall
Janet C. Hall
United States District Judge

6 In December 2025, the defendants’ filed a Joint Motion to Reopen Action for Limited Purpose of
Enforcing Settlement Agreement. (Doc. No. 172). The court entered a Ruling opening the case and
enforcing the Settlement Agreement. (Doc. No. 184). The case was reopened for the li mited purpose on
22 December 2025, and the case was terminated December 29, 2025. (Doc. No. 185). The Pelgrifts
appealed. (Doc. No. 186). On February 3, the instant Motion was filed. (Doc. No. 188). The court
assumes the current Motion was filed to clarify that the terms of the Settlement Agreement would be
enforced by the court. Because of the pendency of the appeal to the Circuit, this court can only give an
advisory opinion if the case is remanded.

This Ruling is not that Advisory Opinion. If remanded, the court will issue such an opinion,
including addressing whether the unsigned Settlement Agreement reflects the settlement agreed to on
the record.
Case 3:24-cv-00474-JCH Document 196 Filed 04/21/26 Page 8 of 8

Passage view · GavelSight