Swift v. Dreambuilder Investments, LLC et al

Filing 40

ORDER: Plaintiff Michael Swift's Second Motion for Extension of Time to Keep Case Open and Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement 39 is DENIED. Signed by Judge Virginia M. Hernandez Covington on 10/16/2014. (AKH)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION
MICHAEL SWIFT,
Plaintiff,
v.

CASE NO. 8:14-cv-1103-T-33AEP

DREAMBUILDER INVESTMENTS, LLC,
ET AL.,
Defendants.
_______________________________/

ORDER
This cause comes before the Court pursuant to Plaintiff
Michael Swift’s Second Motion for Extension of Time to Keep
Case Open and Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement (Doc. #
39) filed on October 15, 2014. For the reasons that follow,
the Court denies Swift’s Motion.
Discussion
On

May

9,

2014,

Swift

filed

a

Complaint

against

Defendants alleging violations of the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1692 et seq., the Florida Consumer
Collection Practices Act, Fla. Stat. § 559.55 et seq., and
the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. § 227 et
seq. (Doc. # 1). Thereafter, on July 14, 2014, Swift filed a
Notice

of

Settlement

indicating
1

that

“Plaintiff

and

Defendant, BP Law Group, LLC (hereinafter, “BP Law Group”),
have reached a verbal settlement with regard to Plaintiff’s
claims against BP Law Group only, and Plaintiff and BP Law
Group are presently drafting, finalizing, and executing a
written settlement agreement and release of liability.” (Doc.
# 16). Upon being informed of the settlement, the Court
entered the following Order:
That on the basis of Plaintiff's Notice of Pending
Settlement as to BP Law Group, LLP [16], this case
is hereby DISMISSED, without prejudice and subject
to the right of the parties, within SIXTY (60) days
of the date hereof, to submit a stipulated form of
final order or judgment, or request an extension of
time, should they so choose or for any party to
move to reopen the action, upon good cause being
shown as to Defendant BP Law Group, LLP ONLY. After
that SIXTY (60) day period, however, without
further order, this dismissal (as to Defendant BP
Law Group, LLP ONLY) shall be deemed with
prejudice. This action remains pending as between
Plaintiff Michael Swift and Defendants Dreambuilder
Investments, LLC and Land/Home Financial Services,
Inc.
(Doc. # 17).
On September 10, 2014 Swift filed an unopposed Motion to
extend time to Keep the Case Open (Doc. # 33). On September
12, 2014, this Court entered an Order extending the deadlines
by 30 days. Swift now moves this Court, on the 90th day, to
keep the case open and enforce the settlement agreement
between Swift and BP Law Group (Doc. # 39). According to
2

Swift’s Motion, the settlement agreement required BP Law
Group to pay Swift settlement funds.

(Id. at ¶ 7).

To date,

Swift claims full payment has not been received (Id. at ¶ 9).
Therefore Swift argues, “Defendant BP Law Group, LLP breached
the terms of the settlement agreement by failing to provide
full settlement funds on or before September 30, 2014.” (Id.).
This Court, however, denies Swift’s Motion. When the
parties notified the Court that they reached a settlement,
the

Court

entered

its

Order

of

dismissal

and

did

not

incorporate the terms of the settlement into that Order.

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., 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 agreement do not suffice to make them
part of his order.
Id. at 381.

Enforcement of a privately negotiated settlement

agreement (which is merely a contract between the parties)
3

requires an independent basis for federal jurisdiction.
at 382.

Id.

An enforcement action, such as the request contained

in the present Motion, is best left for resolution by the
state courts.
Accordingly, it is
ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED:
Plaintiff Michael Swift’s Second Motion for Extension of
Time to Keep Case Open and Motion to Enforce Settlement
Agreement (Doc. # 39) is DENIED.
DONE and ORDERED in Chambers in Tampa, Florida, this
16th day of October, 2014.

Copies: All Counsel of Record

4