If the termination is not final,47 the court remains competent for the application, modification or evacuation of the settlement agreement. If a termination order has been issued in summary proceedings, ”no court is required for the dispute between the parties, because jurisdiction has never been lost”. 48 The parties to an approval decree, as well as its beneficiaries, have the right to apply for enforcement of the resulting award: ”If an order has been made in favour of a person who is not a party to the appeal, that person may impose obedience to the order by the same procedure as a party.” 20 Random beneficiaries of an approval order (unlike its intended beneficiaries), however, are not entitled to enforce it.21 If an approval order requires ongoing monitoring, enforcement may be refused if it is in no federal interest.22 A party may terminate an approval order if the judgment has been complied with, promulgated or set aside by substantial compliance.23 1. Román-Oliveras v. Puerto Rico Elec. Power Auth. (PREPA), 797 F.3d 83, 86-87 (1st cir. 2015) (Befugnis zur Durchsetzung eines verbindlichen mündlichen Vergleichs vor der Entlassung des Falls); Hensley v. Alcon Labs., Inc., 277 F.3d 535, 540 (4th Cir.
2002); Dacanay v. Mendoza, 573 F.2d 1075, 1078 (9. Cir. 1978). 2. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of America, 511 U.S. 375, 378 (1994); Langley v. Jackson State Univ., 14 F.3d 1070, 1073 (5th Cir.
1994). 3. In re Masters Mates & Pilots Pension Plan, 957 F.2d 1020, 1025 (2d Cir. 1992); siehe Taylor v. United States, 181 F.3d 1017, 1032 n.10 (9th Cir. 1999); Haken v. State of Arizona, Department of Corr., 972 F.2d 1012, 1014 (9th Cir. 1992). 4. Sansom Comm.c. Lynn, 735 F.2d 1535, 1538 (3d Cir. 1984).
5. Vgl. Usa v. Int`l Bhd. des Teamsters, 970 F.2d 1132, 1137 (2d Cir. 1992); In re Masters Mates & Pilots Pension Plan, 957 F.2d bei 1026. 6. Vereinigte Staaten gegen Lexington-Fayette Urban County Gov`t, 591 F.3d 484, 489 (6th Cir. 2010).
7. Molski v. Gleich, 318 F.3d 937, 946 (9. Cir. 2003) (The District Court may not unilaterally modify the provisions of an approval decree by its decision approving the proposed decree). 8. Rufo v. held in Suffolk Jail County, 502 U.S. 367, 388-390 (1992); see United States, City of Chi., 978 F.2d 325, 333 (7th Cir. 1992).
9. See square bracket, 972 F.2d to 1016. 10. Fed. R. Civ. P. 60 (b) (5). 11th Fed.
R. Civ. p. 59 (e). 12. Rufo, 502 U.S. at 384 (amended pursuant to Rule 60(b)(5) of the Order of Approval on Institutional Reform of Conditions of Detention). 13. Rufo, 502 U.S. at 383. 14.
Rufo,502 U.S. at 383 n.7; United States v. Sec`y of Housing & Urban Develop., 239 F.3d 211, 217 (2d Cir. 2001). 15. Rufo, 502 U.S. at 385; See New York State Ass`n for Retarded Children, Inc. v. Carey, 706 F.2d 956, 969 (2d Cir. .
