Rendon v. Funk, M.D. et al
Filing
194
OPINION entered by U.S. Magistrate Judge Byron G. Cudmore on 4/4/2013. See written order. Plaintiff's Motion to Enforce Settlement 191 is DENIED. THIS CASE REMAINS CLOSED. (LB, ilcd)
E-FILED
Thursday, 04 April, 2013 04:15:12 PM
Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS, PEORIA DIVISION
JANET RENDON, Independent Administrator
of the Estate of Carol Czubernat,
Plaintiff,
-vsWEXFORD HEALTH SOURCES, INC.,
ARGOSY EDUCATION GROUP, INC.,
AMY RAY, Ph.D., ANGELA WRIGHT,
KIMERI SHULL, CYNTHIA PETERSON,
PATRICK MCELROY, ARTHUR FUNK, M.D.,
Defendants.
ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,
Respondent.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
No. 10-cv-1410
OPINION
BYRON G. CUDMORE, U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE:
Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Enforce Settlement (d/e 191) and
Defendants Angela Wright, Kimeri Shull, Patrick McElroy, and Cynthia Peterson’s
Response (d/e 193). As background, the undersigned mediated a settlement
between Plaintiff and three groups of Defendants. Full settlement was reached
on January 10, 2013 (see d/e 179).
Thereafter, certain documents were filed to finalize the mediated settlement
(see d/es 180-184, 187, 190). Thereafter, to close the litigation, Plaintiff filed
Stipulation to Dismiss (d/e 185) which stated Plaintiff “dismisses this cause of
action with prejudice”. The Court, on January 30, 2013, entered a Text Order
allowing Stipulation (d/e 185) and dismissed the case with prejudice as Plaintiff
requested.
Plaintiff now complains in Motion (d/e 191) that Defendants Angela Wright,
Kimeri Shull, Patrick McElroy, and Cynthia Peterson (the State of Illinois
Department of Corrections employees) have failed to make a “timely” payment of
the agreed settlement between Plaintiff and those Defendants and seeks this
Court’s assistance. The State Defendants’ Response (d/e 193) acknowledges
that “The Defendants fully intend that payment will be made, but lack any ability
to say when the payment will be made.”
The legal dilemma Plaintiff faces with Motion (d/e 191) is that the dismissal
with prejudice requested by the Plaintiff’s Stipulation (d/e 185) and allowed by
the Court divested this Court with jurisdiction to enforce the settlement.1 See
Jessup v. Luther, 277 F.3d 926, 929 (7th Cir., 2002). “[O]nce a suit is dismissed
with prejudice the judge loses all power to enforce the terms of the settlement
that may lie behind that dismissal.”
1
A “conditional” dismissal request and order would have avoided Plaintiff’s dilemma. Therein, in the dismissal
order, the Court would retain jurisdiction to enforce the mediated settlement and the case would be dismissed
without prejudice with leave to reinstate on or before a date certain for the purpose of enforcing the settlement. In
the event a motion to reinstate is not filed on or before the foregoing date, the dismissal will be with prejudice.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff’s Motion to Enforce Settlement
(d/e 191) is DENIED. THIS CASE REMAINS CLOSED.
ENTERED: April 4, 2013
__________s/ Byron G. Cudmore_______
BYRON G. CUDMORE
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
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?