Greene v. Access Door & Glass, Inc.
Filing
69
ORDER ATTACHED denying 68 Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement. See attached order for details. Signed by Judge Richard A. Lazzara for Unassigned Judge on 3/31/2009. (CCB)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA FORT MYERS DIVISION THOMAS GREENE, on his own behalf and others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. ACCESS DOOR & GLASS, INC., Defendant. / ORDER Before the Court is Plaintiffs' Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement (Dkt. 68). After careful consideration of the motion and the file, the Court concludes that the motion should be denied without prejudice to filing a separate action to enforce the settlement agreement. As a court of limited jurisdiction, a federal district court does not enjoy jurisdiction to enforce a settlement agreement in a case that is no longer pending before it unless the parties sought to reserve jurisdiction for that specific purpose before the dismissal occurred. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Amer., 511 U.S. 375, 380-81, 114 S.Ct. 1673, 1677, 128 L.Ed.2d 391 (1994). In this particular case, neither Plaintiffs' original nor amended notice of settlement requests a reservation of jurisdiction in the final order CASE NO: 2:07-cv-188-FtM-99-SPC
approving settlement.1 The report and recommendation of the magistrate judge does not recommend reserving jurisdiction to enforce the settlement agreement.2 Finally, not only does the settlement agreement itself not refer to a reservation of jurisdiction, but paragraph 8 of that agreement seems to contemplate the filing of a separate action to enforce the settlement.3 Accordingly, it is therefore ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows: (1) Plaintiffs' Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement (Dkt. 68) is DENIED without prejudice to filing a separate action to seek enforcement of the settlement agreement. (2) The clerk is directed to term the repetitive motion at docket 66.
DONE AND ORDERED at Tampa, Florida, on March 31, 2009.
s/Richard A. Lazzara RICHARD A. LAZZARA UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
COPIES FURNISHED TO:
Counsel/Parties of Record
1 2 3
See dockets 48 & 60. See docket 64.
See docket 63, Exh. 1. Paragraph 8 provides that if either of the parties "commence an action . . . to enforce the provisions of the Agreement," the prevailing party is entitled to attorney's fees and costs in connection with "any such action." -2-
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?