17 C.F.R. § 12.21

Voluntary dismissal

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) At any time after the Director of the Office of Proceedings has served notification to the parties pursuant to § 12.15 of the Director's determination to forward the complaint to the respondent for a response, either the complainant or the respondent may obtain dismissal of the complaint (or the proceeding, if one has commenced) by filing a stipulation of dismissal, duly executed by all of the complainants and each respondent against whom the complaint has been forwarded (or added as a party in the course of a proceeding); provided however, that if the stipulation is filed after any respondent has filed an answer, the terms of the stipulation shall include a dismissal of any counterclaims in the answer.

(b) A dismissal of a complaint pursuant to this paragraph shall be with prejudice to complainant's right to re-file a claim in reparations based upon the same set of facts as alleged in the dismissed complaint. Unless otherwise stated in the stipulation, a dismissal ordered pursuant to this paragraph shall be regarded by the Commission as without prejudice to the parties' right to seek redress in such alternative forums as may be available for adjudication of their claims.

(c) Upon receiving a written stipulation of dismissal which satisfies the requirements of this rule, the official before whom the matter or proceeding is pending shall issue an order of dismissal, and serve a copy thereof upon each of the parties.

(d) This rule shall be applicable at all stages of a reparation proceeding.

[49 FR 6621, Feb. 22, 1984, as amended at 86 FR 64353, Nov. 18, 2021]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 9 cases, 1979–2003 · leading case: Smith v. Groover, 468 F. Supp. 105 (N.D. Ill. 1979).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Smith v. Groover, 468 F. Supp. 105 (N.D. Ill. 1979). “The CFTC has consistently interpreted the reparations section as permitting commodity customers an election of forums in which to pursue their claims. See 41 Fed.Reg. 3994 (1976); 41 Fed.Reg.”

First Nat'l Monetary Corp. & Michael Bivins v. A.J. Weinberger & Commodity Futures Trading Comm'n, 819 F.2d 1334 (1st Cir. 1987). “” 17 C.F.R. § 12.21 (a)(3) (1982) (emphasis supplied) (current version at 17 C.”

Paul W. Kessenich v. Commodity Futures Trading Comm'n, Rosenthal & Co. v. Commodity Futures Trading Comm'n, Paul W. Kessenich, Intervenor, 684 F.2d 88 (D.C. Cir. 1982). “§ 18(a); 17 C.F.R. § 12.21 . This screening of complaints has been delegated to the Director of the Commission’s Division of Enforcement, who has designated the Reparation Unit to perform the task.”

Christensen Hatch Farms, Inc. v. Peavey Co., 505 F. Supp. 903 (D. Minnesota 1981). “994 (1976); 41 Fed.Reg. 18472 at n.5 (1976); Curran, 622 F.”

Bartels v. Clayton Brokerage Co. of St. Louis, Inc., 631 F. Supp. 442 (S.D.N.Y. 1986). “21, 17 C.F.R. § 12.21 (1985). 15 . We also note that agency authority to enact rules is broad and courts defer to their actions.”

Curran v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc., 622 F.2d 216 (6th Cir. 1980). “The CFTC has consistently interpreted the reparations section as permitting commodity customers an election of forums in which to pursue their claims. See 41 Fed.Reg. 3994 (1976); 41 Fed.”

Singer v. Clayton Brokerage Co. of St. Louis, Inc., 620 S.W.2d 720 (Tex. App. 1981). “Additionally, the CFTC requires that in the complaint instituting reparation proceedings, the complaining party state that no civil court litigation based upon the facts in the complaint has been instituted or is pending.”

Danny K. Melton Nellie H. Melton v. Keith Pasqua Carl Robert Saathoff Universal Commodity Corp. Commodity Futures Trading Comm'n, 339 F.3d 222 (4th Cir. 2003). · cites it 4× “The Stipulation was subsequently filed with the CFTC, and on October 26, 1999, the ALJ dismissed the proceedings with prejudice, pursuant to 17 C.F.R. § 12.21 (2003) (“Rule 12.21”). On October 27, 1999, Danny left a voice mail message with the ALJ stating that he would be…”

Melton v. Pasqua (4th Cir. 2003). · cites it 4× “The Stipulation was subsequently filed with the CFTC, and on October 26, 1999, the ALJ dismissed the pro- ceedings with prejudice, pursuant to 17 C.F.R. § 12.21 (2003) ("Rule 12.21"). On October 27, 1999, Danny left a voice mail message with the ALJ stating that he would be…”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.