PATEL v. METASENSE, INC. et al

Filing 33

MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER granting Plaintiff's 23 Motion to Reopen Case and denying Defendants 29 Motion for Settlement. Signed by Judge Noel L. Hillman on 2/21/2017. (TH, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

KALPESH PATEL,

1:15-cv-00004-NLH-JS
MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER

Plaintiffs,
v.
METASENSE, INC. and JOHN DOES
1-5 AND 6-10,
Defendants.

APPEARANCES:
COSTELLO & MAINS, P.C.
Deborah L. Mains
18000 Horizon Way, Suite 800
Mount Laurel, New Jersey 08054
Counsel for Plaintiff
PENBERTHY & PENBERTHY, PC
John C. Penberthy, III
2020 Springdale Road, Suite 400
Cherry Hill, New Jersey 08003
Counsel for Defendant Metasense, Inc.
HILLMAN, United States District Judge:
WHEREAS, on July 11, 2016, the parties participated in a
settlement conference with the Magistrate Judge, during which
conference they reached an agreement to settle the matter 1; and

1

The suit concerns alleged violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 201, et seq. (“FLSA”). This Court
exercises federal question subject matter jurisdiction pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 1331.
1

WHEREAS, on August 23, 2016, the Court entered an Order of
Dismissal, which provided:

“This action be, and the same

hereby is, DISMISSED without costs and without prejudice to the
parties’ right to reopen this action, within 60 days, if the
settlement is not consummated” (Docket No. 22); and
WHEREAS, on August 26, 2016, Plaintiff filed a motion to
reopen the case (Docket No. 23) because the settlement had not
been consummated; and
WHEREAS, on September 23, 2016, Defendant filed a crossmotion to enforce the settlement (Docket No. 29); and
WHEREAS, the Court does not have jurisdiction to consider
Defendant’s motion to enforce the settlement because the Order
of Dismissal did not make the settlement part of the record,
see Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Insurance Co. of America, 511
U.S. 375, 378 (1994) (finding as a general rule that a federal
district court does not retain jurisdiction to enforce a
settlement agreement unless the court, typically as part of its
order of dismissal, orders the parties to comply with the terms
of the settlement agreement or incorporates terms of a
settlement agreement explicitly retaining jurisdiction into one
of its orders); Sawka v. Healtheast, Inc., 989 F.2d 138, 141–42
(3d Cir. 1993) (holding that “unless a settlement is part of
the record, incorporated into an order of the district court,
or the district court has manifested an intent to retain

2

jurisdiction, it has no power beyond the Rules of Civil
Procedure to exercise jurisdiction over a petition to enforce a
settlement”); Washington Hospital v. White, 889 F.2d 1294,
1298–99 (3d Cir. 1989) (stating “a district court does not have
continuing jurisdiction over disputes about its orders merely
because it had jurisdiction over the original dispute”); and
WHEREAS, Defendant’s recourse for Plaintiff’s alleged
failure to abide by the terms of the settlement agreement is to
either file a new action for breach of contract, see Sawka, 989
F.2d at 140 (assuming arguendo that a party breached the terms
of the settlement agreement, “that is no reason to set the
judgment of dismissal aside, although it may give rise to a
cause of action to enforce the agreement”), or once the matter
is reopened seek to assert a counterclaim for breach of the
settlement agreement, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2) (“[A] party
may amend its pleading only with the opposing party's written
consent or the court's leave.

The court should freely give

leave when justice so requires.”); Patel v. Pandya, 2016 WL
3129615, at *1 (D.N.J. June 2, 2016) (explaining that Rule
15(a)(2) applies to the addition of counterclaims) 2;
THEREFORE,

2

This Court takes no position as to which, if either or any,
path Defendant should choose, and the Court does not opine on
the merits of a motion for leave to assert such a counterclaim.
3

IT IS on this

21st

day of

February

,

2017
ORDERED that the “MOTION to Reopen Case by KALPESH PATEL”
[23] be, and the same hereby is, GRANTED; and it is further
ORDERED that the “First MOTION for Settlement enforce by
METASENSE, INC.” [29] be, and the same hereby is, DENIED. 3

s/ Noel L. Hillman
NOEL L. HILLMAN, U.S.D.J.

At Camden, New Jersey

3

Once the matter is reopened by the Clerk, the parties shall
meet with the Magistrate Judge to determine whether courtassisted mediation will be helpful to resolving the parties’
dispute.
4