Carroll-Brufsky et al v. The E.W. Scripps Company et al

Filing 61

ORDER denying without prejudice 60 Motion to enforce settlement, for lack of jurisdiction. Signed by Judge Elizabeth A. Kovachevich on 6/19/2013. (JM)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
FORT MYERS DIVISION

MARCIA CARROLL-BRUFSKY,
ETAL,

Plaintiffs,
v.

CASE NO. 2:11-CV-500-FTM-UA-DNJ

THE E.W. SCRIPPS

COMPANY, ET AL,
Defendants.

ORDER

This cause is before the Court on:

Dkt. 60

Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement

Plaintiffs move to enforce the Settlement Agreement.

Plaintiffs filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal (Dkt. 54) pursuant to Rule 41 (a)(2)
on June 25, 2012.

A Mediation Report indicating settlement was also filed. (Dkt. 55).

On July 9, 2012, the Court entered an order administratively closing the case for sixty
days, pending the filing of a stipulation for dismissal.

(Dkt. 57).

Plaintiffs filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal on July 27, 2012. (Dkt. 58).

Notice is signed by Plaintiffs, and by Douglas Rankin, Esq., attorney for Estate and
Trust of Frank C. Blumeyer. Based on the statements within the Notice, the Court

considers the Notice to be a stipulation for dismissal pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.
41(a)(1)(A)(ii). The Notice is self-executing, and served to dismiss the case with

The

Case No. 2:11-CV-500-FTM-UA-DNF

prejudice. On September 10, 2012, the Court entered an order dismissing the case
only as an administrative matter, to signal the Clerk of the Court to terminate the case
in CMECF.

The Court notes the discussion of the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals in Anaqo

Franchising. Inc. v. Shaz. LLC. 677 F.3d 1272, 1278 (11* Cir. 2012). The Court did not
enter an Order retaining jurisdiction prior to the filing of the Notice of Voluntary
Dismissal (Dkt. 58). In the Notice (Dkt. 58), the parties did not request that the Court
retain jurisdiction for enforcement. The parties did not condition the effectiveness of the
stipulation on the Court's retention of jurisdiction for enforcement. The Court did not

retain jurisdiction for enforcement. (Dkt. 59).

The Court concludes that the Court

does not have jurisdiction to adjudicate Plaintiff's Motion to Enforce Settlement
Agreement. Plaintiffs may seek to enforce the Settlement Agreement in state court.
Accordingly, it is

ORDERED that the Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement (Dkt. 60) is denied
without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction.

DONE and ORDERED in Chambers, in Tampa, Florida on this 19th day of June,
2013.

.IZABETH A. KOVACHEVICH

United States District Judge
Copies to:
All parties and counsel of record

)