[brief] In response to a complaint filed by Plaintiff [...] in New Jersey federal court, *Gannon et al. v. Shift4 et al.* (Docket No. [...]), Defendant [...] f/k/a [...] moved to reopen this lawsuit ("*[...]*"), an unrelated matter they had settled with a class of plaintiffs that included Dr. Gannon in 2015.  [...] insisted that the claims filed by Dr. Gannon in federal court in 2023—arising from facts that occurred long after *[...]* was dismissed—were extinguished by the 2015 settlement in *[...]*.  [...] agreed.  Final judgment was entered in *[...]* Feb. 20, 2015, and the complaint therein, originally filed in 2012, was dismissed with prejudice.  The *Gannon* complaint asserts different claims arising from separate misconduct that occurred well after the dismissal of *[...]*.  The *Gannon* complaint filed in federal court does not involve the fees at issue in *[...]*.  The *Gannon* complaint, asserting claims based on transactions that occurred *post* 2015, does not—in fact, it could not—involve the transactions that were at issue in *[...]*.  Moreover, there is nothing in the 2015 *[...]* settlement (hereinafter, the “2015 Settlement”) to indicate that the *[...]* class agreed to relinquish *future* claims that had yet to accrue for *future* misconduct that had yet to even occur.  Most importantly, the 2015 Settlement does not contain any “covenant not to sue”—a covenant whereby “a party having a right of action agrees not to assert that right in litigation” (BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY, 299 (7th ed. 2000))—for claims accruing after Feb. 20, 2015.  In the absence of a “covenant not to sue”, [...] cannot accuse Dr. Gannon, or any other member of the [...] class, of having breached the 2015 Settlement.  Without a breach of the 2015 settlement, there was no cause to reopen [...]—other than for the limited purpose of declining jurisdiction over the 2023 Gannon v. Shift4 matter in federal court.  Defendants’ strategy is clear: rewrite the 2015 Settlement to absolve themselves, into perpetuity, of any future claims arising from future allegations of misconduct that bear any likeness at all to the claims asserted in [...].  Even [...] acknowledged in his Statement of Reasons that “the fees at issues in the Gannon case are not the exact same fees at issue in Roma” (Pa0108).  Members of the [...] class who would otherwise be members of the Gannon class are severely prejudiced by the trial court’s decision to indulge Defendant [...]’s artful litigation maneuver.  The Gannon class members have the right to assert their present claims in their chosen forum.  The Defendants cannot retroactively rewrite the 2015 Settlement into something the [...] class never agreed to: a perpetual claim preclusion license.  The trial court did not have jurisdiction over *Gannon v. Shift4* simply because a decade ago, a class of plaintiffs asserted similar claims arising from separate facts in a separate forum.  If there was any cause at all to reopen *[...]*, it was only for the purpose of ruling that the 2015 Settlement does not amount to a release of any claims accruing after Feb. 20, 2015—and therefore does not bar Dr. Gannon’s action in federal court on behalf of all others similarly situated.  Defendant [...]’s motion to reopen *[...]* should have been denied and [...]’s order of May 8, 2024 should otherwise be reversed.