McIntyre v. Aurora Cares, LLC. et al

Filing 59

Order granting in part and denying in part 57 MOTION to Enforce Settlement Motion to Reinstate and Enforce Mediation Agreement filed by Carol McIntyre. The 57 Motion is GRANTED as to the motion to reinstate and DENIED as to the motion to enforce mediation agreement. Granting 58 MOTION to Supplement Notice of Supplemental Filing filed by Carol McIntyre. Pretrial Conference set for 9/28/2011 at 12:00 Noon in US Courthouse, Judge's Chambers, 113 St. Joseph Street, Mobile , AL 36602 before Judge Kristi K. DuBose. Joint Pretrial Document due by Noon on 9/27/2011. Jury Selection set for 10/4/2011 at 08:45AM and for trial during the month of October, 2011, in Mobile, Alabama. Signed by Judge Kristi K. DuBose on 9/22/2011. copies to parties. (sdb)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA SOUTHERN DIVISION CAROL McINTYRE, Plaintiff, vs. AURORA CARES, LLC, d/b/a/ TARA CARES and MOBILE NURSING AND REHABILITATION CENTER, LLC., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 10-00208-KD-C ORDER This action is before the Court on the motion to reinstate and enforce mediation agreement filed by Plaintiff Carol McIntyre (doc. 57).1 Upon consideration, and for the reasons set forth herein, the motion is GRANTED as to the motion to reinstate and DENIED as to the motion to enforce mediation agreement. This action having been reinstated to the active docket of this Court, the Rule 16(b) Scheduling Order (doc. 24) is amended as follows: 8. Final Pretrial Conference. This action shall be pretried by Judge Kristi DuBose on Wednesday, September 28, 2011 at 12:00 noon, in Mobile, Alabama. The Joint Pretrial Document required by the Order Governing Final Pretrial Conference shall be due on or before 12:00 Noon, Tuesday, September 27, 2011 (doc. 24-1, ¶ 1.). 9. Trial Date. This action will be set for jury selection on Tuesday, October 4, 2011 at 8:45 a.m. and for trial during the month of October, 2011, in Mobile, Alabama, the specific date to be set once the total number of actions to be tried that month is determined. The parties have 1 Plaintiff’s motion to supplement (doc. 58) is GRANTED. estimated that this action will require 2-3 trial days. Motion to reinstate According to the Order entered on September 1, 2011, this action was dismissed with prejudice subject to the right of either party to reinstate the action within thirty (30) days of the date of the Order should the settlement agreement not be consummated (doc. 56). The thirty day time period will expire on October 1, 2011. Therefore, the motion is timely. Motion to enforce settlement agreement This Court does not have inherent power to enforce a settlement agreement solely on the basis that the agreement was reached in connection with a civil action before this Court. In Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Insurance Co., 511 U.S. 375 (1994), the Supreme Court explained that enforcement of a settlement agreement “is more than just a continuation or renewal of the dismissed suit, and hence requires its own basis for jurisdiction.” Id. at 378. The “enforcement of the settlement agreement is for state courts, unless there is some independent basis for federal jurisdiction.” Id. at 382. Thus, this Court must have either ancillary jurisdiction because “the parties’ obligation to comply with the terms of the settlement agreement had been made part of the order of dismissal” or “some independent basis for federal jurisdiction” exists. Id. at 380-382. The settlement agreement was not made part of this Court’s Order of dismissal. Thus, ancillary jurisdiction does not exist. Also, the information provided is not sufficient for the Court to determine whether an independent basis of jurisdiction, such as diversity jurisdiction, exists over the settlement agreement. DONE and ORDERED this 22nd day of September, 2011. s / Kristi K DuBose KRISTI K. DuBOSE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?