PNC Bank NA et al v. 2013 Travis Oak Creek GP LLC et al
ORDER GRANTING 204 Motion to Reopen Case. Signed by Judge Robert Pitman. (dm)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
PNC BANK, N.A., COLUMBIA HOUSING
SLP CORPORATION, and 2013 TRAVIS
OAK CREEK, LP,
2013 TRAVIS OAK CREEK, GP, LLC,
2013 TRAVIS OAK CREEK DEVELOPER,
INC., CHULA INVESTMENTS, LTD., and
RENE O. CAMPOS,
2013 TRAVIS OAK CREEK, GP, LLC and
2013 TRAVIS OAK CREEK, LP,
PNC BANK., N.A. and COLUMBIA
HOUSING SLP CORPORATION,
(consolidated with 1:17-cv-560-RP)
Before the Court is 2013 Travis Oak Creek, LP’s, 2013 Travis Oak Creek, GP, LLC’s, and
Rene O. Campos’s (“Movants”) Motion to Reopen Case to Enforce Settlement Agreement. (Dkt.
204). Having considered the parties’ briefs, the evidence, and the relevant law, the Court finds that
the motion should be granted.
On January 7, 2019, the parties in this case filed a Joint Motion to Abate, representing that
they were in the process of preparing a settlement. (Dkt. 192). In response, the Court stayed the case
until February 18, 2019. (Dkt. 193). After several requests to extend the stay, (Dkts. 194, 196, 197,
198), the parties filed a stipulation of dismissal pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
41(a)(1)(ii), dismissing all claims and counterclaims in this action with prejudice. (Dkt. 202). In their
stipulation, the parties asked the Court to retain jurisdiction over this action for the purpose of
enforcing their settlement agreement. (Id. at 1–2 (“This stipulation of dismissal is without prejudice
to the Parties’ reserved rights to enforce their settlement agreement, if and as may be necessary, in
On October 7, 2019 the Court entered a Final Judgment. (Dkt. 203). In its final judgment,
the Court explicitly retained “jurisdiction to enforce the parties’ settlement and resolve any disputes
related to it.” (Dkt. 203, at 2 (“IT IS ORDERED that the Court shall retain jurisdiction to enforce
the parties’ settlement agreement and resolve any disputes related to it.”)).
Movants allege that Respondents have refused to fulfill certain terms of the settlement. (Dkt.
204, at 2). As a result of Respondents’ alleged actions, Movants filed a Motion to Reopen Case to
Enforce Settlement Agreement on December 1, 2021. (Id.). Respondents filed a response on
December 15, 2021. (Dkt. 205). Movants filed a reply on December 22, 2021. (Dkt. 206).
“Enforcement of a settlement agreement . . . is more than just a continuation or renewal of
the dismissed suit, and hence requires its own basis for jurisdiction.” Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins.
Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 378 (1994). “‘[A] district court's jurisdiction over a case that is settled and
voluntarily dismissed by stipulation cannot extend past the filing date absent an express contingency
or extension of jurisdiction.’” Def. Distributed v. United States Dep't of State, 947 F.3d 870, 873 (5th Cir.
2020) (quoting SmallBizPros, Inc. v. MacDonald, 618 F.3d 458, 461 (5th Cir. 2010)). But a district court
is “authorized to embody the settlement contract in its dismissal order (or, what has the same effect,
retain jurisdiction over the settlement contract) if the parties agree.” SnallBizPros, 618 F.3d at 463.
(quoting Kokkonen, 511 U.S. at 381–82).
To ensure that a court retains jurisdiction to enforce the terms of a settlement agreement,
“the filing’s effectiveness must be contingent upon a future act (such as the district court issuing an
order retaining jurisdiction).” Id. A district court “may make a settlement agreement part of its
dismissal order: either by separate provision (such as a provision “retaining jurisdiction” over the
settlement agreement) or by incorporating the terms of the settlement agreement in the order.”
Hospitality House, Inc. v. Gilbert, 298 F.3d 424, 430 (5th Cir. 2002).
The Court has the power to reopen this case for the purposes of enforcing the parties’
settlement agreement. A court may “reopen a case to enforce a settlement agreement if the order of
dismissal contains language expressly retaining jurisdiction over the enforcement of the settlement
agreement. Goudelock v. McLemore, 985 F.Supp.2d 816, 817 (N.D. Miss. 2013) (citing Kokkonen, 511
U.S. at 382). Here, the Court’s order expressly retained jurisdiction over enforcement of the
Movants have not addressed the merits of a motion to enforce the agreement. Instead,
Movants ask the Court to reopen this case to allow them to file a motion to enforce settlement.
Respondents’ main argument in opposition is that Movants have not presented any precedent that
justifies this reopening the case. (Resp., Dkt. 205, at 3). But it is undisputed that this Court’s Final
Judgment reads: “IT IS ORDERED that the Court shall retain jurisdiction to enforce the parties’
settlement agreement and resolve any disputes related to it.” (Final Judg., Dkt. 203, at 2). The Court
retains jurisdiction to enforce the settlement because its Final Judgment explicitly discussed
enforcement jurisdiction and made the “settlement agreement part of its dismissal order . . . by
separate provision.” Hospitality House, 298 F.3d at 430. Accordingly, for good cause shown, the Court
will grant Movants’ motion.
For the reasons given above, IT IS ORDERED that Movants’ Motion to Reopen Case to
Enforce Settlement, (Dkt. 204), is GRANTED. The case is reopened for the purposes of enforcing
the settlement agreement.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Movants submit a motion to enforce the settlement
agreement on or before December 2, 2022.
SIGNED on November 18, 2022.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT 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?