Cromeans v. Morgan Keegan & Co., No. 16-2417 (8th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this CaseClass representatives challenged the district court's denial of their motion to enforce the settlement agreement in a securities settlement, and the district court's denial of a subsequent motion to alter or amend. The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment and denied defendants' motion to dismiss. The court explained that this case continues to present a live controversy and the Stipulation explicitly granted that the district court would have continuing jurisdiction for the purposes of enforcing the agreement and addressing settlement administration matters. The court also held that the case was not prudentially moot where the district court has the ability to provide an effective remedy; the district court did not err in interpreting the Stipulation according to its unambiguous meaning and in holding that defendants complied with the Stipulation's payment obligations; and the district court did not err by holding that the meaning of the Stipulation was unambiguous as matter of law and, in doing so, the district court did not place a burden of proof on any party.
Court Description: Gritzner, Author, with Riley and Gruender, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Missouri Securities Act. The appeal presents a live controversy because the dispute concerns whether the defendants fully discharged their obligations under the Stipulation concerning settlement, and the Stipulation explicitly granted the district court continuing jurisdiction to enforce the agreement and address settlement administration; appeal was not prudentially moot; district court did not err in interpreting the provisions of the Stipulation and in holding defendants had complied with the Stipulation's payment obligations; as plaintiffs were seeking specific performance of the agreement, the district court properly placed the burden on them to establish disputed issues of fact.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.