UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA 

FORT WAYNE DIVISION 

CALVIN WILSON, 

individually and on behalf 

of all others similarly situated, 

 Plaintiff, 

v. CAUSE NO.: 1:15-CV-402-TLS-SLC 

ALLEN COUNTY BOARD OF 

COMMISSIONERS, ALLEN 

COUNTY COUNCIL, and 

ALLEN COUNTY PUBLIC 

DEFENDER BOARD, 

 Defendant. 

OPINION AND ORDER 

This matter is before the Court on a Stipulation to Dismiss [ECF No. 142], filed by the 

parties on March 30, 2020. In the Stipulation to Dismiss, the parties stipulate that this case be 

dismissed with prejudice with the Court maintaining jurisdiction for the purpose of enforcing the 

settlement agreement. For the following reasons the Court STRIKES the Stipulation to Dismiss 

[ECF No. 142]. 

 A plaintiff may voluntarily dismiss a civil action by filing a stipulation of dismissal 

signed by all parties who have appeared. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). A stipulation of 

dismissal that meets the requirements of Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) effectively dismisses the case upon 

filing without further order of the court. Jenkins v. Vill. of Maywood, 506 F.3d 622, 624 (7th Cir. 

2007). Generally, this kind of dismissal is without prejudice unless the parties specify otherwise. 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(B). Stipulations of dismissal thus provide litigants with a flexible tool to 

negotiate their disputes and cease litigation whenever they wish, determining for themselves, 
2 

without need to consult the court, when the litigation will terminate and whether the plaintiff will 

be precluded from renewing his suit at a future time. 

 The parties have, pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), stipulated for the dismissal of this 

case. The stipulation aims to both dismiss the case with prejudice and have the Court retain 

jurisdiction to enforce the terms of the settlement. However, the parties’ goals are incompatible. 

See Indianapolis Fruit Co. v. SCI, Inc., No. 3:08-CV-46, 2008 WL 2626671, at *1 (N.D. Ind. 

June 26, 2008) (recognizing that the “court cannot, on the one hand, dismiss a case with 

prejudice and enter final judgment, and, on the other hand, retain jurisdiction over the case to 

enforce settlement agreement terms”). 

The Court will not retain jurisdiction to enforce a settlement agreement when the case is 

dismissed with prejudice. In Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of America, the United States 

Supreme Court wrote: 

If the parties wish to provide for the court’s enforcement of a dismissal-producing 

settlement agreement, they can seek to do so. When the dismissal is pursuant to 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2), which specifies that the action “shall 

not be dismissed at the plaintiff’s instance save upon order of the court and upon 

such terms and conditions as the court deems proper,” the parties’ compliance 

with the terms of the settlement contract (or the court’s “retention of jurisdiction” 

over the settlement contract) may, in the court’s discretion, be one of the terms set 

forth in the order. Even when, as occurred here, the dismissal is pursuant to Rule 

41(a)(1)(ii) (which does not by its terms empower a district court to attach 

conditions to the parties’ stipulation of dismissal) we think the 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. Absent 

such action, however, enforcement of the settlement agreement is for state courts, 

unless there is some independent basis for federal jurisdiction. 

511 U.S. 375, 381–82 (1994). 

 

 A “district judge cannot dismiss a suit with prejudice, thus terminating federal 

jurisdiction, yet at the same time retain jurisdiction to enforce the parties’ settlement that led to 
3 

the dismissal with prejudice.” Shapo v. Engle, 463 F.3d 641, 643 (7th Cir. 2006) (emphasis 

added) (citing Lynch v. SamataMason, Inc., 279 F.3d 487, 489 (7th Cir. 2002)). 

 The Court in Shapo offers two additional options for parties who seek to preclude further 

litigation of the claims but who nevertheless want the court to retain jurisdiction over matters 

that may take more time to resolve: (1) “the settlement should include a release of the plaintiff’s 

claims, thus barring relitigation of them;” or (2) “the district court should state that judgment is 

being entered in order to allow the parties to enforce it and that the ‘without prejudice’ language 

shall not allow them to reopen issues resolved by the judgment.” Id. 

 In Blue Cross & Blue Shield Association v. American Express Co., the Seventh Circuit 

Court of Appeals suggested a third option for parties desirous of an early settlement. 467 F.3d 

634 (7th Cir. 2006). Similar to Shapo, the parties in Blue Cross entered into a settlement that 

provided that the plaintiff would dismiss its suit with prejudice but that the district court would 

retain jurisdiction to enforce the settlement agreement in the event of its breach. The court found 

that this situation implied entry of a consent decree, for the settlement contemplated long-term 

undertakings. See id. at 636. On remand, the appellate court, inter alia, ordered the district court 

to promptly enter a consent decree in compliance with Rule 65(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure. See id. at 641. 

CONCLUSION 

 Accordingly, the Court hereby STRIKES the Stipulation to Dismiss [ECF No. 142]. The 

Court GRANTS the parties leave to file a motion to dismiss with prejudice after the parties have 

fully executed the terms of the Settlement Agreement; to file a motion to dismiss without

prejudice, attaching a copy of the Settlement Agreement for the Court to include in the order of 

dismissal and asking that the dismissal without prejudice be converted to a dismissal with 
4 

prejudice upon notice of the parties of the execution of all terms of the Settlement Agreement; to 

file a motion for a consent decree under Rule 65(d); or to pursue some other resolution of this 

matter consistent with the parties’ agreement. 

 The Court REAFFIRMS the telephonic status conference set for April 9, 2020, at 10:00 

a.m. (central time) to be initiated by the Court, unless the parties file the necessary 

documentation for dismissal prior to that date. 

 SO ORDERED on March 31, 2020. 

 s/ Theresa L. Springmann 

 CHIEF JUDGE THERESA L. SPRINGMANN 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT