UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

Russell Marcilis, II, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v. Case No. 09-11624

Redford Township, et al., Sean F. Cox

United States District Court Judge

Defendants.

_____________________________/

ORDER

Represented by Counsel, Plaintiffs filed this § 1983 action on April 30, 2009. The case

was assigned to the Honorable Lawrence P. Zatkoff. After Judge Zatkoff made a ruling denying

qualified immunity, there was an interlocutory appeal. The United States Court of Appeals for

the Sixth Circuit affirmed Judge Zatkoff’s qualified immunity ruling on August 14, 2012, and

the case was remanded thereafter to the trial court. Judge Zatkoff scheduled the matter for trial. 

On May 21, 2013, however, after the parties agreed to a “STIPULATION TO DISMISS

CASE”1

, Judge Zatkoff issued an “ORDER TO DISMISS CAUSE,” prepared by counsel for the

parties, that stated, in its entirety:

Upon the reading and filing of the stipulation annexed hereto, and the

Court being fully advised in the premises;

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this case is dismissed with prejudice

and without costs and without attorney fees to any party; all pending claims are

1

 The Stipulation to Dismiss stated “The parties in the above-entitled case by their

respective attorneys, hereby stipulate and agree that an Order be entered forthwith dismissing the

said case with prejudice and without costs and attorney fees to any party.” (Docket Entry No. 97

at Pg ID 1104).

1

2:09-cv-11624-SFC-MAR Doc # 109 Filed 12/02/15 Pg 1 of 3 Pg ID 1456
resolved and this case is closed.

(Docket Entry No. 97 at Pg ID 1105) (emphasis added).

 On October 23, 2015 – more than two full years after the matter had been dismissed with

prejudice and the case had been closed – Plaintiffs filed a motion asking the Court to resolve a

dispute regarding attorney fees that stemmed from a settlement agreement in this case.

Because Judge Zatkoff passed away after this case had been dismissed and closed, the

matter was been reassigned to the undersigned. 

“Nothing is to be more jealously guarded by a court than its jurisdiction.” Douglas v.

E.G. Baldwin & Assocs., Inc., 150 F.3d 604, 606 (6th Cir. 1998). This is because “[f]ederal

courts are courts of limited jurisdiction.” Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of American, 511

U.S. 375, 377 (1994). “It is to be presumed that a cause lies outside this limited jurisdiction” and

“the burden of establishing the contrary rests upon the party asserting jurisdiction.” Id. 

 Upon the Court’s initial review of the motion filed, it appeared to this Court that it lacks 

subject matter jurisdiction over the pending motion. As such, the Court ordered Plaintiffs to

show cause, in writing, why this Court should not decline to rule on the pending motion.

In responding to that order, Plaintiffs assert that this Court has the discretion to exercise

supplemental jurisdiction over the disputes over attorney fees raised in the pending motion and

that it would be more convenient for the dispute to resolved here rather than in state court.

Even if this Court has the discretion to entertain the pending motion, this Court would

decline to do so under the circumstances presented here – where this action was dismissed with

prejudice more than two full years before the motion was filed and where another judge presided

over the case.

2

2:09-cv-11624-SFC-MAR Doc # 109 Filed 12/02/15 Pg 2 of 3 Pg ID 1457
The Court hereby ORDERS that it DECLINES TO EXERCISE JURISDICTION over

Plaintiffs’ motion.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

S/Sean F. Cox 

Sean F. Cox

United States District Judge

Dated: December 2, 2015

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon counsel of record on

December 2, 2015, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

S/Kelly Winslow for Jennifer McCoy 

Case Manager Generalist

3

2:09-cv-11624-SFC-MAR Doc # 109 Filed 12/02/15 Pg 3 of 3 Pg ID 1458