Maciejka v. Williams et al

Filing 82

ORDER On Magistrate Judges Report And Recommendation; Adopting in Part 79 Report and Recommendations; granting 78 Motion to Dismiss. Signed by Judge Robert N. Scola, Jr on 10/3/2018. See attached document for full details. (ail) OPINION (ail).

United States District Court
for the
Southern District of Florida
Steven Maciejka, Plaintiff,
v.
Jabaria Williams and others,
Defendants.

)
)
)
Civil Action No. 16-21031-Civ-Scola
)
)
)

Order on Magistrate Judge’s Report And Recommendation
This case was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Patrick A.
White, consistent with Administrative Order 2003-19 of this Court, for a ruling
on all pre-trial, nondispositive matters and for a report and recommendation
on any dispositive matters. On September 11, 2018, Judge White issued a
report, recommending that the Court grant the Plaintiff’s “Motion of Stipulation
to Dismiss.” (Report of Magistrate, ECF No. 79.) Judge White recommends that
the Court grant the Plaintiff’s motion and dismiss the case with prejudice upon
receipt of the parties’ joint notice of settlement. None of the parties have filed
objections and the time to do so has passed.
Upon receiving notice that the parties had settled this matter, the Court
ordered the Plaintiff to file either a stipulation of dismissal, under Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), or a motion to dismiss, consistent with Rule
41(a)(2). (Order, ECF No. 77.) Given the title of the Plaintiff’s filing, the Court
must first determine whether the Plaintiff has submitted a stipulation of
dismissal or a motion to dismiss because Rule 41 imposes different
requirements for these submissions and each come with their own set of
implications. Judge White does not make this determination, and instead
states that it is unclear whether a stipulation of dismissal was filed in this case
and whether the parties have submitted a proposed settlement agreement for
the Court’s review and approval.
The Plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se, refers to Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), in his
filing. This subsection of Rule 41 refers to stipulations of dismissal, which are
self-executing and require a signature from all of the relevant parties. Although
the Plaintiff’s filing is entitled “Motion of Stipulation to Dismiss” and the
Plaintiff stated that “this stipulation of dismissal is conditioned upon the
Court’s entry of an order retaining jurisdiction,” the Plaintiff’s filing is a motion
requesting relief from the Court and was submitted by the Plaintiff without the
Defendants’ signatures. The filing also states that a condition of the parties’

settlement is that the Plaintiff must submit a motion to dismiss his claims with
prejudice. These facts indicate that the Plaintiff’s filing is a motion to dismiss
under Rule 41(a)(2).
Rule 41(a)(2) allows the Court to dismiss this case “on terms that [it]
considers proper.” The Court need not review the parties’ settlement to make a
ruling on the Plaintiff’s motion given the nature of this case, nor have the
parties asked the Court to approve their settlement. The Court declines to
adopt Judge White’s report to the extent he has imposed such requirements.
The Plaintiff’s motion asks the Court to retain jurisdiction to enforce the
terms of the parties’ settlement agreement. The Defendants have not indicated
that they oppose this request. Judge White recommended that the Court retain
jurisdiction and dismiss the case with prejudice “once the parties jointly
submit their notice of settlement” as required by Local Rule 16.4 and ordered
the parties to file their notice of settlement “within 30 days from the entry” of
the Court’s order adopting his report. (Report, ECF No. 79 at 2.)
The Court disagrees with Judge White that a separate notice of
settlement is necessary under the circumstances. The parties communicated to
the Court that they had reached a settlement in their agreed motion to stay.
(Motion, ECF No. 76.) This motion served as a notice of settlement. Accordingly,
the parties need not file anything additional to effectuate a dismissal in this
case and the Court declines to adopt Judge White’s report to the extent it
requires the parties to file a separate notice of settlement. As for the Plaintiff’s
request that the Court retain jurisdiction to enforce the terms of the parties’
settlement, the Court finds that it has the discretion to do so. Kokkonen v.
Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 381 (1994) (“When the dismissal is
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2) . . . the parties’ compliance
with the terms of the settlement contract (or the court’s ‘retention of
jurisdiction’ over the settlement contract) may, in the court’s discretion, be one
of the terms set forth in the order.”)
Accordingly, upon review of Judge White’s report, the Plaintiff’s motion,
the record, and the relevant legal authorities, the Court adopts in part and
declines to adopt in part Judge White’s report (ECF No. 79), grants the
Plaintiff’s motion (ECF No. 78), and dismisses this case with prejudice. The
Court reserves jurisdiction to enforce the parties’ settlement agreement.
Done and ordered, at Miami, Florida, on October 3, 2018.
_______________________________
Robert N. Scola, Jr.
United States District Judge