International Brotherhood of Elecgtrical Workers Local 915 Pension Fund et al v. Dale C. Rossman, Inc.

Filing 5

ORDER dismissing case without prejudice. The Clerk is directed to close the case. See Order for details. Signed by Judge Virginia M. Hernandez Covington on 4/16/2014. (KAK)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF
ELECTRICAL WORKERS LOCAL 915
PENSION FUND, ET AL.,
Plaintiffs,
v.

Case No. 8:14-cv-627-T-33AEP

DALE C. ROSSMAN, INC.,
Defendant.
________________________________/
ORDER
This

matter

comes

before

the

Court

pursuant

to

Plaintiffs’ Notice of Voluntary Dismissal Subject to Right to
Reopen Case in the Event of Default (Doc. # 4), which was
filed on April 16, 2014. The Court dismisses the case without
prejudice as outlined below.
Discussion
Plaintiffs filed this ERISA action on March 13, 2014, and
Defendant has not yet responded to the Complaint.

On April

16, 2014, Plaintiffs filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal
Under Rule 41(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
indicating that “the parties have agreed to settle their
dispute and have entered into a Settlement Agreement.” (Doc.
# 4 at 1).

However, the Notice of Voluntary Dismissal also

contains a purported reservation of Plaintiffs’ “right to
reopen [the] case in the event of default” as well as the

statement that “Plaintiffs are authorized to reopen this case
and apply for a judgment based upon the Settlement Agreement.”
(Id.).
“Compromises

of

disputed

claims

are

favored

by

the

courts,” Williams v. First Nat’l Bank, 216 U.S. 582, 595
(1910),

and

it

is

“the

policy

of

the

law

generally

to

encourage settlements.” Fla. Trailer and Equip. Co. v. Deal,
284 F.2d 567, 571 (5th Cir. 1960).

However, the Court is

under no obligation to retain jurisdiction over a settled
case, and the Court declines to do so here. See Kokkonen v.
Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375 (1994):
The situation would be quite different if the
parties’ obligation to comply with the terms of the
settlement agreement had been made part of the
order of dismissal – either by separate provision
(such as a provision “retaining jurisdiction” over
the settlement agreement) or by incorporating the
terms of the settlement agreement in the order. In
that event, a breach of the agreement would be a
violation of the order, and ancillary jurisdiction
to enforce the agreement would therefore exist.
That, however, was not the case here. The judge’s
mere awareness and approval of the terms of the
settlement do not suffice to make them a part of
his order.
Id. at 381.
The Court encourages the compromise of disputes, such as
the case of the present settlement, but notes that it does not
approve that portion of the Notice of Voluntary Dismissal
which

extends

the

Court’s

jurisdiction

with

a

purported

reservation of Plaintiffs’ right to reopen this settled case
2

upon a future contingency.

The Court dismisses the case

without prejudice based on Plaintiffs’ representation that the
parties have entered into a Settlement Agreement and directs
that the case be closed. In the event that Defendant fails to
comply

with

the

terms

of

the

Settlement

Agreement,

any

enforcement action will be left for resolution by the state
courts

because

enforcement

of

a

privately

negotiated

settlement agreement (which is merely a contract between the
parties)

requires

an

independent

basis

for

federal

jurisdiction. Id. at 382.
Accordingly, it is
ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED:
This case is dismissed without prejudice. The Clerk is
directed to close the case.
DONE and ORDERED in Chambers, in Tampa, Florida, this
16th day of April, 2014.

Copies:

All Counsel of Record

3