Shell v. Ohio Family Rights et al

Filing 104

Memorandum and Order denying 92 Plaintiff's Motion to enforce the Settlement Agreement and Motion for sanctions. Magistrate Judge David A. Ruiz on 11/22/2016. (G,W)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION

SUZANNE SHELL,
Plaintiff,
v.
RAY R. LAUTENSCHLAGER,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 1:15CV1757
Magistrate Judge David A.
Ruiz

MEMORANDUM
AND ORDER

RUIZ, Mag.J.
The plaintiff Suzanne Shell filed suit pro se in this court
against pro se defendants Ray R. Lautenschlager and Rosalind A.
McAllister (collectively the “parties”), as well as against
several parties who have since been dismissed.

Shell filed an

amended complaint on January 19, 2016, alleging copyright
infringement against the defendants concerning three works with
copyrights allegedly registered and owned by Shell.

(R. 15.)

Currently before the court is Shell’s Motion to Enforce
Settlement Agreement and Motion for Sanctions.
relevant background is in order.

(R. 92.)

Some

On September 6, 2016,

Magistrate Judge Kenneth S. McHargh held an in-person status
conference with the parties.

(R. 82.)

The conference adjourned

temporarily so the parties could mediate their dispute with
another judicial officer.

The mediation was partially

successful, in that Shell and McAllister agreed to settle the
claims against McAllister. 1

(R. 83.)

Immediately thereafter,

Shell and McAllister appeared in open court before the judicial
officer who mediated the matter and confirmed the terms of their
settlement agreement, on the record with a court reporter
present transcribing the proceedings.

See R. 83, Minutes of

Proceedings, and R. 103, Transcript of Proceedings.

Shell and

McAllister agreed that the case between them “was considered
settled and dismissed with prejudice.”
and R. 103, Tr., PageID #: 945.)

(R. 83, PageID #: 709,

The court did not retain

jurisdiction over their settlement agreement.
On September 30, 2016, Magistrate Judge McHargh, to whom
the parties had previously consented, retired.

The case was

returned to the originally assigned District Judge, who on
October 4, 2016, dismissed the claims against then-defendant
McAllister with prejudice, based upon the settlement agreement
reflected on the docket.

The remaining parties, Shell and

Lautenschlager, then consented to the jurisdiction of the
undersigned, Magistrate Judge Ruiz.

1

(R. 89, 90, 91.)

The claims against the remaining defendant,
Lautenschlager, did not settle through that mediation.

On October 10, 2016, plaintiff Shell filed her Motion to
Enforce Settlement Agreement and Motion for Sanctions pertaining
to McAllister.

(R. 92.)

Shell asserts that she presented a

draft Consent Judgment (see R. 92-1) to McAllister for her
signature, but that McAllister refused to sign the draft
judgment, and that McAllister’s disagreement with the terms of
the draft judgment demonstrates that “McAllister does not intend
to honor the terms of the [draft] Consent Judgment, terms that
she indicated her agreement with in two court hearings.”

(R.

92, ¶ 6, PageID #: 821.)
The court held a telephone conference on November 16, 2016,
with Shell and McAllister to address this motion.

The court was

unsuccessful in resolving the dispute behind the motion.

During

the telephone conference, however, both Shell and McAllister
stated that they settled their claims at the September 6th
mediation and indicated that they confirmed the terms of their
agreement in open court.
Shell and McAllister successfully mediated their dispute
and reached an oral agreement, which terms were set forth and
agreed to by each person on the record, and they agreed the
matter was settled and dismissed with prejudice.

They, however,

did not memorialize in writing the terms of their oral
settlement agreement and there is a disagreement over the import
of the terms that each agreed to on the record.

The terms of

their settlement agreement are set forth in the transcript of
the proceedings on the record on September 6, 2016.

(R. 103,

PageID #: 944-945; see also R. 83.)
The court did not retain jurisdiction over the settlement
agreement.

In addition, the court no longer has jurisdiction

over McAllister.

McAllister was dismissed from the case, with

prejudice, on Oct. 4, 2016.

Therefore, the motion to enforce

the settlement agreement (and for sanctions) against McAllister
(R. 92) must be, and hereby is, denied.

This court is without

jurisdiction to consider a motion by either Shell or McAllister
to enforce or dispute the terms of their settlement agreement or
to re-litigate their underlying disputes.
For the reasons set forth above, Shell’s Motion to Enforce
Settlement Agreement and Motion for Sanctions (R. 92) is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Nov. 22,

2016

/s/ David A. Ruiz
David A. Ruiz
United States Magistrate Judge