UN I TE D ST AT ES D I STR I CT C OU RT F O R T H E D IS T R IC T O F C O LU M B IA

__________________________________________ ) N A T H A N LIN D E LL, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Ci vi l A cti on No. 08 -14 62 (P L F) ) THE LANDI S CORP ORATI ON 401(K) PL AN; ) L ANDI S CONSTRUCTI ON COMPANY; ) ET HA N LAN DI S, i nd ivi du a lly

and in h is c a pa c ity ) as an of fice r; HUGH J EFF REY FOX , PL AN ) A D M IN IS T RA T O R

o f th e LA N D IS ) CORPOR ATI ON 401(K) PL AN; and JOHN ) DO ES 1 -5 , F idu c iari e s, ) ) De fe nd ants
. ) __________________________________________)
MEMORANDUM OPI

NI ON Th is m a tte r i s b e fo re the Court on de fe nd ants ’ m oti on

to d ism iss fo r f

a ilure to state a c la im u po n w hic h r e lie f c an b e g ra nte d und e r R

ule 12 (b )( 6) of

the F e de ra l Ru le s o f C ivi l Procedur e (“ Mot.”), plaintiff’ s opposition (“Opp.”) a nd defe ndants’ re ply . For the re asons dis c us se d b e low , th e Court fi nd s th a t th e iss ue s r a ise d in thi s mo tio n a

re be tte r u

nd e rs too d a s a
c ha lle ng e to s ub

je c t matte r j ur isd ic tio n und e r R ule 12 (b )( 1) of

the F e de ra l Ru le s o f C ivi l Procedur e. Ha

ving c are fully

considere d the par

ties’ ar g uments and the re levant ca se law, the Court will gra

nt defe ndants’ motion to dism iss as to defenda nts L andis Construction Company and Ethan L andis, individually and in his capa city

as an of fice r, and the Court will deny defe ndants’ motion to dism iss as to defenda nts L andis Corporation 401(k) Plan, Hug h J eff rey F ox, a nd JohnDo e s 1 -5 , F idu c iari e s.2 I . BA CKGROUND Plaintiff Nathan L indell, a forme r employ ee of L andis Construction Company (“the company”), br oug ht this action under the Employ ee Re tirement Income Sec urity Act of 1974, as amende d , 29 U.S.C. §§ 1001 et seq., (“ERI SA”), for unpaid and untimely

contributions by the company

to its 401(k) Plan in which Mr. L indell was a pa rticipant. Plaintiff also alleg es that de fe nd ant F ox and

the JohnDo e fi du c iari e s b re a c he d th e ir fi du c iary duty to h im i n th e ir capa city as administrators of the plan. Def endants now move to dismi ss on the g round that the claim is barr ed by

a settlement a g ree ment enter ed into by the par ties in a related ca se conc erning unpaid over

time wag es. De fenda

nts further a

rgue that this claim is barre d by the doctrine of res judicata in l ig ht o f t

he same se ttl e me nt a g re e me nt.

I I . DI SCUS SI ON A. Standard of Review Fe dera l courts ar e cour

ts of limit ed jurisdiction. Under Article I I I ’s ca se or controve rsy

require ment, fede ral c ourts may only decide “re al and substantial contr overs[ies]”. North Carolina v. Rice , 404 U.S. 244, 246 (1971) (quotingAetna L ife Ins. Co. v. Haworth, 300 U.S. 227 (1937)). F eder al cour ts have no jurisdiction over moot ca ses, see Worth v. J ackson, 451 F. 3d 854, 857 ( D.C. Cir. 2006), and such c ases must be dismissed for lac k of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) of the F eder al Rules of Civil P roce dure. The Court has “a n
a f f i r m a t i v e o b l i g a t i o nt o ‘ e n s ur e th a ti ti s a c t i n g w i th i nth e s c o p e o f i t s j ur i s d i c t i o n a l a

u th o r i ty’

. . . w hic h in c lud e s th e ob lig a tio n to c on sid e r t he po ssi bil ity

of moo tne ss. ” Ab u A li v . G on zal e s, 387 F. Supp. 2d 16, 17 (D.D .C. 2005) (quoting Gra nd L odg e of F rate rnal Or der of Police v.3

Ashcrof t, 185 F. Supp. 2d 9, 13 (D.D.C. 2001)) . Claims that have bee n resolved by ear lier settlement ag ree ments, and there fore prese nt no ongoingcontrove rsy , are moot. See Allen v. Nicholson, 573 F. Supp. 2d 35, 38 (D.D .C. 2008) (citingAulenbac k, Inc. v. F eder al Hig hway Ad min ., 10 3 F .3 d 1 56 , 1 61 (D .C. Cir . 1 99 7) ). Ac c or din g ly , th e Court wi ll a na ly ze d e fe nd ants ’ mot ion to d ism iss fo r f

a ilure to s tate a

c la im b a se d o n a

pr ior se ttl e me nt a g re e me nt a s a mot ion to dismiss for lac k of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1)

. Under Rule 12(b)(1) , the plaintiff bea rs the burde n of establishingsubject matter jurisdiction. See Br ady

Campaig n to Prevent Gun Violenc e v. Ashc roft, 339 F . Supp. 2d 68, 72 (D.D.C. 2004). When de ciding a motion to dism iss for lack of subject matter jur isdiction under Rul e 12 (b )( 1) , th e Court

mus t c on str

ue the c omp la int

in t he pla int if

f’ s f avo r a nd tr e a t a ll w e llpled fa ctual alleg ations as true. See Allen v. Nicholson, 573 F . Supp. 2d at 38. The Court is not require d, howeve r, to ac cept unsupporte d infere nces or “leg al conc lusions cast as fa ctual alleg ations.” I d. at 38 (quotingRann v. Chao, 154 F. Supp 2d 61, 64 (D .D.C. 2001)) (inter nal quotation marks omitted). Under Rule 12(b)(1) , the Court may dispose of the motion on the basis of the c omplaint alone or it may consider materials beyond the pleading s, such as the proff ere d settlement agree ment, “as it dee ms appropriate to resolve the question whether it has jurisdiction to hear the c ase.” Scolaro v. D.C. B oard of Elections and Ethics, 104 F . Supp. 2d 18, 22 (D.D.C. 2000).
B. The Settleme nt Agreeme nt

On Fe bruar

y 11, 2008, plaintiff sued the c ompany and its CEOs, Ethan L andis and Christopher L andis, in their individual capa cities for unpa id overtime wa g es. See L indell v.4

L andis Constr. Corp., Civi l Action No. 08-0229, Complaint, Dkt. No. 1 (D.D.C. F ebrua ry 11, 2008). On August 26, 2008, the parties in that ca se agree d to prepa re a joint st ipulation of dis mis sa l. S e e Mo t. at 2. On Se pte mbe r 8 , 2 00 8, the pa rt ie s f ile d a sti pu latio n, a g re e ingto dis mis s th e c a se un de r R

ule 41 (a )( 1) (A )( ii) of

the F e de ra l Ru le s o f C ivi l Pr oc e dure . Se e L ind e ll v. L andis Constr. Corp., Sti pulation of Dismissal, Dkt. No. 15 (D.D.C. Sept. 8, 2008). The one

pag e handwritten settlement ag ree ment was sig ned by Ethan L andis on beha lf of all the defe ndants in the ca se. See Mot., Exhibi t 1 (the “Settlement Agree ment”). F or the purpose of this action, the rele vant information in the Settlement Ag ree ment is contained in its para g raph four, whic h states simply : “This is a settlement and r elea se of a ll claims betwee n the par ties.” I d. After signingthe Settlement Ag ree ment, Mr. L indell filed the lawsuit cur rently befor e the Court. The pa rties do not dispute the leg itimacy of the Settlement Ag ree ment. Rather, the question is whether

the ea rlier se ttlement bars all of pla intiff’s cur rent c laims. Settl ement ag ree ments are contra cts, and c ourts interpre t them acc ording ly . See 13B C H A RLES A L AN W R I GHT , A RT H U R R. M I LL ER & E DW AR D H. C OOPER , F ED ER A L P R AC TI C E AND P ROCE D U RE § 3533.2 (2d ed. 2002) ; see a lso Dodg e v. Truste es of Nat. Gallery of Art, 326 F . Supp. 2d 1, 9 (D.D.C. 2004) ( “When a c ase is settled e x tra-judicia lly throug h settlement ag ree ments, this C ourt ha s a pp lie d th e pr inc ipl e s o f c on tr a c t la w . . . . to de te rm ine wh a t c la ims the pa rt ie s inte nd e d to fore close fr om future litigation.”) (inter nal citations omitted). In such situations, “‘the judicial task . . . is to give e ffe ct to the mutual intent of the par ties,’ and ‘ when the la

ng uag e of a

contra ct is c le ar a nd un ambi g uo us on

its fa c e , a

c ourt wi ll a ssume tha

t th e me anin g or din ari ly

a sc ri be d to those words re flec ts the intention of the parties.’ ” Pigf ord v. Schaf

er, 536 F . Supp. 2d 1, 10 (D.D.C. 2008) ( quoting Me sa Air Gr oup, Inc. v. De p’t of Tra nsp., 87 F.3d 498, 503 (D .C. Cir.ERI SA specifies that an employ ee be nefit plan may be sued a s an entity . See 29 1 U.S.C. §1132(d).

The pa rties’ e x hibits raise a fa ctual dispute over whether defe ndant Hug h J eff

rey 2 F ox is the 40 1( k) Plan a dmi nis tr a tor , a nd the re fo re , w he the r h e is a n a pp ro pr iate de fe nd ant t o th is action. Exhibi t 2 of defe ndants’ motion is a decla ration by Mr. Fox denying that he has e ver se rv e d a s a

pla n a dmi nis tr a tor

of the c omp any ’s 40 1( k) pla n, se e Mo t., Exhi bit

2 ¶ 3, wh ile Ex hibit 1 of plaintiff’s opposition shows Mr. Fox’s si g nature as a pla n administrator on plaintiff’s plan e nrollment form. See O pp., Ex hibit 1. C onstruing the fac ts alleg ed in plaintiff’s favor , as the Court must do at this point , the Court for now w ill treat Mr. F ox as the plan administrator and a s an appr opriate de fenda nt in this action. 5 1996)). Any

asser tions of ambiguity

in the terms of the a g ree ment must be established by objective e vidence . See id.

Plaintiff argues that the Settlement Ag ree ment is lim ited to his wag e pay ment claims. Nothing in the plain languag e of the Settlement Ag ree ment provides for such a lim itatio n, ho we ve r. Th e un ambi g uo us and e xpans ive langua g e pr ov ide s f or the re le a se of

“ a ll claims” be tween the parties. Settlement Ag ree ment ¶ 4. The Settlement Agree ment there fore ba rs a ll o f M r. L ind e ll’ s c la ims , in c lud ingthe on e s in the ins tant l aws uit

be fo re thi s Co ur

t,
a g a ins t th e signator ie s to the a g re e me nt — name ly , th e c omp any

and Etha n L and is, ind ivi du a lly

and in h is c a pa c ity a s an o ff ic e r. Th e Court

c on c lud e s th a t pl a int if

f’ s c la ims a g a ins t th e se de fe nd ants are moo t and

wi ll g ra nt t he mot ion

to d ism iss a s to tho se de fe nd ants
. Th e Se ttl e me nt A g re e me nt d oe s n ot, ho we ve r, ba r M r. L ind e ll’ s c la ims a g a ins t parties who w ere not signatories to the ag ree ment. In the settled ca se Mr. L indell sued the
c omp any , b ut h e did

no t na me a s d e fe nd ants the 40 1( k) Pla n o r a ny of its a dmi nis tr a tor s. 1 Def endants obliquely

sug g est that these pa

rties ar e func tionally

identical to the sig natories to the Se ttl e me nt A g re e me nt, but th e y have no t g ive n th e Court a de qu a te e vid e nc e or

a uth or ity to support such a c onclusion. The Court conc ludes there fore that the Settlement Ag ree ment does 26

not moot Mr. L indell’s claims ag ainst these par ties.
C. R es J ud ic ata Def endants a lso argue that this action is barr ed by the doctrine of re

s ju dic ata . Under the doctrine of re

s ju dic ata , a

fi na l ju dg me nt o n th e me ri ts i n a n a c tio n p re c lud e s th e same parties f rom litigatingclaims that wer e or c ould have be en ra ised in that action. See Me delius Rodrigue z v. U.S. C itiz enship and I mmigration Service, 605 F . Supp. 2d 142, 146 (D.D.C. 2009) (quoting Allen v. McCurry , 449 U.S. 90, 94 (1980)). I f the settlement a g ree ment rea ched by the parties in L indell v. L andis Construction Corporation, Civil Action No. 08-0229, had bee n approve d by

the Court as a judg ment on the merits or in the for m of a c onsent dec ree , res judicata might bar

plaintiff’s cla ims. But “[r]es judicata ca nnot operate in the abse nce of a judgme nt. A settlement ag ree ment that has not bee n integ rate d into a consent de cre e [or order of
a cour t] is not a judgme nt and ca nnot trigg er re

s ju dic ata .” Carve r v. Na ll, 172 F.3d 513, 515 (7th Cir. 1999); see a lso Bailey v. DiMario, 925 F . Supp. 801, 810-11 (D.D.C. 1995) ( prec luding claims on res judicata g rounds that wer e the subjec t of a c ourt-appr oved cla ss action settlement). To have prec lusive eff

ect, a court judg ment must be rende red in some f orm; otherwise a settlement ag ree ment on its own is effec tive only as a c ontrac t. See 18A W R I GHT , M I LL ER & C OOPER , § 4443 (2d ed. 2002) . In Civil Action No. 08-0229, the parties e ntere d into a sti pu latio n o f d ism iss a l un de r R ule 41 (a )( 1) (A )( ii) , w ithno jud g me nt e nte re d b y the Court . Ru le 41(a) (1)( A)(ii) pr ovides: “[T] he plaintiff may dismiss an ac tion without court order by filing . . . a stipulation of dismiss al sig ned by all the par

ties who have appea

red.” F ED . R. C IV . P. 41(a) (1)( A)(ii). In the abse nce of a cour t order, the settlement ag ree ment has no pre clusive7

eff ect. De fenda

nts’s arguments as to res judicata there fore are misplaced, a nd the Court will not dismiss the ca se on those g rounds. D. Plaintiff ’s Proposed Ame ndment In his oppositi on to defe ndants’s motion to dism iss, plaintiff reque sted that he be pe rm itt e d to ame nd

his c omp la int

to i nc lud e Etha

n L and is a

nd Chr ist op he r L and is i n th e ir capa cities as plan a dminist rators of the L andis Construction Corporation 401(k) pla n as de fe nd ants . U nd e r R

ule 15 (a )( 1) (A ), a

pa rt y may ame nd its ple a din g on c e a s a

matte r o f c ours e befor e beingserve d with a re sponsive pleading . See F ED . R. C IV . P. 15(a)( 1)(A) . To do so, howeve r, L ocal Civil Rule 7(i) require s that the party file an or igina l of the propose d pleadingas
am e n d e d

. S e e L. C V . R. 7 (i ). Th e pla int if f h a s n ot d on e so and

un til he do e s, the Court

wi ll continue to re ly

upon the orig inal complaint.

I I I . CONCL USI ON Th e Court

wi ll g ra nt d e fe nd ants ’ m oti on

to d ism iss wi th r e sp e c t to de fe nd ants L andis Construction Company and Ethan L andis, individually and in his capa city

as an of fice r. Def endants’ motion to dismiss is denied with respe ct to defe ndants L andis Construction Com pa ny 40 1( k) Plan, Hu g h Jef

fr e y F ox and JohnDo e fi du c iari e s. An Or de r a c c omp anyingthi s Memorandum Opinion will issue this same day

. / s / PAULL . FRI EDMAN Un i t edS t at es Di s tri ctJ u d ge DATE: Jul y

28, 2009