Gidarisingh v. Pollard et al

Filing 81

ORDER Denying Plaintiff's Motion 78 to Clarify Terms of Settlement Agreement signed by Judge Charles N Clevert, Jr on 2/2/17. Copy sent via US Mail to Sonniel R. Gidarisingh. (cc: all counsel) ((kwb), C. N. Clevert, Jr.)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN

SONNIEL R. GIDARISINGH,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 12-CV-576

JUSTIN SEGERSTROM,
Defendant.

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO
CLARIFY TERMS OF SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT (DOC. 78)
The plaintiff, Sonniel R. Gidarisingh, has filed a motion to clarify the terms of the
settlement agreement that was reached in this case on September 25, 2014, following a
mediation hearing before Magistrate Judge Nancy Joseph. The court dismissed this case
with prejudice on September 26, 2014, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
41(a)(1)(A)(ii), based on the parties’ stipulation.
In general, a court retains jurisdiction over a settled and dismissed case “if the
parties’ obligation to comply with the terms of the settlement agreement has] been made
part of the order of dismissal—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.” Bond v. Etriers, 585 F.3d 1061, 1079 (7th Cir. 2009) (quoting
Cuquenan v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 381 (1994)). Retaining
jurisdiction over the enforcement of a settlement agreement does not require a district
court to use “any magic form of words” and instead “[all that is necessary is that it be

possible to infer that [the court] did intend to retain jurisdiction.” McCall–Bey v. Franzen,
777 F.2d 1178, 1188 (7th Cir. 1985)).
Hence, there is nothing in the record of this case to suggest the court intended to
retain jurisdiction to enforce the settlement between the parties. The matter was dismissed
with prejudice. Accordingly, the court concludes that it did not retain jurisdiction to enforce
the settlement agreement. Therefore,
IT IS ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion to clarify terms of settlement agreement
(Docket 78) is denied.
Dated at Milwaukee, Wisconsin, this 2nd day of February, 2017.
BY THE COURT

s/ C. N. Clevert, Jr.
C. N. CLEVERT, JR.
U.S. District Judge

2