Austin et al v Auto Handling Corporation et al

Filing 90

OPINION AND ORDER DENYING 84 MOTION for Reconsideration. Signed by Judge Holly A Brady on 5/13/2020. (mrm)

USDC IN/ND case 1:18-cv-00082-HAB-SLC document 90 filed 05/13/20 page 1 of 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
FORT WAYNE DIVISION
JARREN AUSTIN, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
AUTO HANDLING CORPORATION, et
al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Cause No. 1:18-CV-82-HAB

OPINION AND ORDER
On March 4, 2020, this Court entered its Order and Opinion (ECF No. 81) (the “Order”)
granting in part and denying in part Plaintiffs’ second attempt to revise their complaint. Included
in the Order was a determination that proposed plaintiff James (or David) Thompson could not
bring an employment discrimination claim in this action because his claim did not fall within the
scope of a stipulation to lift the automatic stay resulting from Defendants’ bankruptcy. The Court
concluded, based on the plain language of the stipulation, that Thompson’s claim was not one of
the “Subject Claims” for which the stay was lifted. (ECF No. 81 at 5–7).
Plaintiffs now ask the Court to reconsider that part of the Order. Plaintiffs raise three
grounds for reconsideration: (1) to clarify that that alternatively named James/David Thompson is
one person, James David Thompson; (2) to apply New York law in interpreting the stipulation,
rather than Indiana law, consistent with the stipulation’s choice of law clause1; and (3) to interpret
the stipulation as lifting the stay on Thompson’s proposed claim. Defendants disagree, urging that

1
The choice of law clause was not raised by either party during the briefing on the motion for leave to amend. In fact,
neither party engaged in any meaningful discussion of the stipulation beyond noting the names that did or did not
appear on its list of parties. This left the Court to assume the role as the proverbial “pig[], hunting for truffles buried
in the record.” Gross v. Town of Cicero, Ill., 619 F.3d 697, 702 (7th Cir. 2010). Unfortunately, the Court’s hunt did
not turn up truffles, but instead the legal equivalent of Indiana’s poisonous Amanita mushroom.

USDC IN/ND case 1:18-cv-00082-HAB-SLC document 90 filed 05/13/20 page 2 of 3

Plaintiffs have not identified good cause for this Court to revisit the Order, and further asserting
that this Court’s original reading of the stipulation was correct.
Now that the parties are asking this Court to do more than read the names on the stipulation,
a fundamental question of this Court’s jurisdiction arises. In the United States Bankruptcy Court
for the Northern District of Georgia’s Order Approving Stipulation Modifying the Automatic Stay,
the order that lifted the automatic stay in Defendants’ bankruptcy pursuant to the terms of the
parties’ stipulation, that court expressly retained “exclusive jurisdiction with respect to all matters
arising from or related to the implementation, interpretation, and enforcement of” its order. In re:
Jack Cooper Ventures, Inc., et al., Case No. 19-62393, Dkt. No. 437 (Bankr. N.D. Ga. November
20, 2019). The bankruptcy court’s retention of jurisdiction was appropriate, since “bankruptcy
courts must retain jurisdiction to construe their own orders if they are to be capable of monitoring
whether those orders are ultimately executed in the intended manner.” Kalamazoo Realty Ventures
Ltd. P’ship v. Blockbuster Entm’t Corp., 249 B.R. 879, 887 (N.D. Ill. 2000) (quoting In re
Franklin, 802 F.2d 324, 326 (9th Cir. 1986)).
Given the bankruptcy court’s retention of exclusive jurisdiction, this Court concludes that
it cannot interpret the stipulation as urged by Plaintiffs or Defendants. Indeed, this Court cannot
interpret the stipulation at all. That job belongs solely to the United States Bankruptcy Court for
the Northern District of Georgia. Therefore, since the motion to reconsider would require
interpretation of the stipulation, it must be denied. If the bankruptcy court interprets its order and
the stipulation in a manner inconsistent with the Order, Plaintiffs will be given leave to amend
their complaint to add Thompson at that time.
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs’ Motion to Reconsider is DENIED.

2

USDC IN/ND case 1:18-cv-00082-HAB-SLC document 90 filed 05/13/20 page 3 of 3

SO ORDERED on May 13, 2020.
s/ Holly A. Brady
JUDGE HOLLY A. BRADY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

3