Employers & Laborers Locals 100 & 397 Pension, Health, Welfare and Annuity Funds v. Ehret, Inc. et al
ORDER DENYING 29 MOTION to Amend/Correct 28 Clerk's Judgment filed by Employers & Laborers Locals 100 & 397 Pension, Health, Welfare and Annuity Funds. Signed by Magistrate Judge Reona J. Daly on 11/16/2020. (lmo)
Case 3:19-cv-00715-RJD Document 30 Filed 11/16/20 Page 1 of 3 Page ID #266
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EMPLOYERS & LABORERS LOCALS 100 )
& 397 PENSION, HEALTH, AND
WELFARE ANNUITY FUND,
Case No. 19-cv-715-RJD
DALY, Magistrate Judge:
This matter comes before the Court on the Motion to Amend the Clerk’s Judgment by
Plaintiffs Employers & Laborers Locals 100 & 397 Pension, Health, Welfare, and Annuity Funds.
Plaintiffs’ Motion is unopposed (Doc. 29). As explained further, Plaintiffs’ motion is DENIED.
Plaintiffs filed this suit on July 2, 2019 pursuant to the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”), 29 U.S.C. §1001, et seq. On or about June 8, 2020, the parties
advised the Court that they had settled. The undersigned ordered the Clerk of Court to enter a
judgment of dismissal with prejudice on August 10, 2020. The parties were advised that if they
failed to finalize settlement prior to August 10, 2020, they could move the Court to postpone the
entry of judgment (Doc. 27). Neither party filed such a motion.
On July 28, 2020, counsel for Plaintiff emailed to the undersigned’s chambers a copy of
the settlement agreement between the parties, which stated that the parties agreed that judgment
shall be entered for Plaintiffs in a certain amount. Along with the settlement agreement, counsel
for Plaintiff attached a document to the email titled “Stipulation for Dismissal”, but it was not
Page 1 of 3
Case 3:19-cv-00715-RJD Document 30 Filed 11/16/20 Page 2 of 3 Page ID #267
signed by the parties. It stated that “the Court shall retain jurisdiction for the purpose of enforcing
the terms of the Settlement Agreement” and “this case is dismissed, with prejudice.” The Court
had not requested these documents. Neither party filed a motion requesting that the Court adopt
the parties’ settlement agreement as part of the final judgment. On August 11, 2020, the Clerk of
Court dismissed this case with prejudice. Later that day, Plaintiffs filed a Motion to Amend the
Plaintiffs do not cite the authority under which they are asking the Court to amend the
Clerk’s judgment. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e), judgment may be altered or
amended “when there is newly discovered evidence or there has been a manifest error of law or
fact.” Harrington v. City of Chicago, 433 F.3d 542, 546 (7th Cir. 2006). A judgment that
contains a clerical mistake may be corrected. Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(a). Plaintiffs appear to be
arguing that the Court was mistaken when it dismissed this case with prejudice because the parties
wanted the Court to enter the Stipulation for Dismissal. However, there was no pending motion
for the Court to consider the provisions of the Stipulation for Dismissal and therefore no mistake
or error by the Court. Fed. R. Civ. P. 7(b). Furthermore, a stipulation for dismissal is signed and
filed by the parties, not the Court. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1).
More importantly, the Court cannot simultaneously dismiss a case with prejudice and retain
jurisdiction to enforce the terms of the settlement. Shapo v. Engle, 463 F.3d 641, 643 (7th Cir.
2006). An exception to this rule is where the Court issues an injunction ordering the terms of the
settlement; the district court can enforce injunctions post-dismissal via contempt proceedings. Id.
Here, however, no party moved the Court for an injunction prior to the Court’s dismissal order.
Consequently, Plaintiff’s Motion is DENIED.
Page 2 of 3
Case 3:19-cv-00715-RJD Document 30 Filed 11/16/20 Page 3 of 3 Page ID #268
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: November 16, 2020
s/ Reona J. Daly
Hon. Reona J. Daly
United States Magistrate Judge
Page 3 of 3
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?