2002 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

7-25-2002

Comm Workers of Amer v. NJ Dept Personnel

Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential

Docket No. 01-3408

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2002

This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2002 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.

Recommended Citation

"Comm Workers of Amer v. NJ Dept Personnel" (2002). 2002 Decisions. Paper 436.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2002/436
 NOT PRECEDENTIAL 

 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

 FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT 

 

 No. 01-3408 

 

 COMMUNICATIONS WORKERS OF AMERICA, AFL-CIO, 

 Appellant 

 and 

 LOCAL 1033 OF THE COMMUNICATIONS WORKERS OF AMERICA, 

 CHERYL TOBIN, BESSIE DELEON, REGINA JACKSON, ARUN KAUSHAL 

 v. 

 NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL and 

 MERIT SYSTEM BOARD 

 

 ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

 FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY 

 D.C. No. 99-cv-3329 

 District Judge: Honorable Mary Little Cooper 

 

 Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) 

 July 12, 2002 

 

Before: SCIRICA and GREENBERG, Circuit Judges, and FULLAM,* District Judge 

 (Opinion Filed: July 25, 2002) 

 

*The Honorable John P. Fullam, Senior District Judge of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, 

sitting by designation. 

 

 OPINION 

PER CURIAM: 

 Appellant Communications Workers of America, AFL-CIO ("the 

National") brought a racial discrimination case against the appellee, New Jersey 

Department of Personnel, challenging a "Performance Assessment Review" program 

used by appellee in making personnel decisions. In 1999, after certain changes were 

made in the program in question, the parties settled their differences and, in January 

2000, submitted a stipulation of settlement to the district court. Before that stipulation 

was approved or acted upon in any way, a local union and certain of its members ("the 

Local") sought to intervene in the action in opposition to the proposed settlement. The 

district court permitted intervention, and the Local filed its separate complaint asserting 

claims for damages on behalf of its members. The National had opposed intervention by 
the Local, but, after intervention was permitted, notified the district court that the 

National no longer consented to the proposed settlement. The National also filed a 

motion to amend its complaint, to include claims for damages. 

 The appellee filed a motion to dismiss the Local’s complaint as timebarred, opposed the National’s attempt to amend its complaint, and filed a motion to 

enforce the settlement agreement. In May 2001, the district court entered an order 

dismissing the Local’s complaint as time-barred. In August 2001, the district court 

granted appellee’s motion to enforce the settlement agreement, and dismissed as moot the 

National’s motion for leave to amend its complaint. Both the National and the Local 

filed appeals which, in the aggregate, appealed from both orders. The Local’s appeal 

was heard by another panel of this court, and was disposed of in a published opinion, 

Communications of America v. New Jersey Department of Personnel, 282 F.3d 213 (3d 

Cir. 2002). The Court affirmed the dismissal of the Local’s complaint and also upheld 

the district court’s order enforcing the settlement agreement. In a footnote, the Court 

stated: 

 "3. The National also separately appealed from the order 

 enforcing the settlement agreement but withdrew from this 

 appeal on the eve of oral argument scheduled in this court. 

 However, the National continues to maintain its separate 

 appeal from the August 2001 order." 

 Since the National did not actually participate in the earlier appeal, and 

since the Local union was not a party to the settlement agreement and had been dismissed 

from the case, the panel’s discussion of the enforcement of the settlement constitutes 

dictum, and does not relieve us of the obligation to decide whether the present appeal, 

i.e., whether the district court was correct in requiring the National to comply with the 

settlement agreement. Neither party to the present appeal contends that the panel’s 

decision is binding, as to the enforcement issue. 

 On the merits, we have no difficulty in concluding that the district court 

properly enforced the settlement agreement. Appellant’s argument that, since the district 

court never reserved jurisdiction to enforce the settlement agreement, it lacked 

jurisdiction to do so, is incorrect. That doctrine applies only to post-judgment 

applications for enforcement. In the present case, the litigation was still pending before 

the district court; the district court never lost jurisdiction over the litigation. And since 

undisputed that the appellant and the appellee, who were the only parties to the lawsuit at 

the time, repeatedly informed the district court that the case was settled, and submitted a 

stipulation of settlement, the court’s later conclusion that the parties had indeed settled 

the case is not surprising. The district court acted properly in enforcing the settlement 

agreement, and dismissing the action pursuant to that agreement. The court also acted 

properly in concluding that the dismissal of the action rendered moot appellant’s 

application for leave to amend the complaint. 

 The order appealed from will be affirmed.