IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

CHARLES RODNEY PARKE, et al., )

 )

Plaintiffs, )

 )

v. ) CIVIL ACTION 09-0327-WS-C

 )

EDWARD GLOVER, et al., )

 )

Defendants. )

ORDER

This matter comes before the Court on plaintiffs’ Motion to Reinstate Case for Settlement

Purposes (doc. 38).

On April 15, 2010, the undersigned entered an Order (doc. 37) dismissing this action on

settlement, subject to the right of any party to reinstate the case within 30 days if the settlement

documentation were not consummated in the interim. On May 13, 2010, plaintiffs timely

requested reinstatement on the grounds that (i) the parties agreed in their confidential settlement

agreement that the Court would retain jurisdiction to enforce the agreement; (ii) “there have been

some problems implementing” their settlement agreement, although both sides have been

working in good faith to resolve them; and (iii) “the parties may need instruction from the Court

as to how this settlement agreement would be carried out.” (Doc. 37, ¶¶ 1-3.) Thus, plaintiffs

requested reinstatement not because the settlement had collapsed, requiring reopener of litigation

proceedings against defendants, but instead to have this Court retain jurisdiction over the parties’

settlement, which is very much intact. Plaintiffs’ motion was effectively one for retention of

jurisdiction, with reinstatement serving as the means to that end.

In the ordinary case when federal court litigants enter into a settlement agreement, this

Court does not retain jurisdiction to oversee enforcement issues that may arise months or even

years down the road; rather, those concerns typically implicate state law and are left for state

Case 2:09-cv-00327-WS-C Document 39 Filed 05/19/10 Page 1 of 3
1 See generally Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Insurance Co., 511 U.S. 375, 378, 382,

114 S.Ct. 1673, 128 L.Ed.2d 391 (1994) (enforcement of a settlement agreement “is more than

just a continuation or renewal of the dismissed suit,” such that “enforcement of the settlement

agreement is for state courts, unless there is some independent basis for federal jurisdiction”);

Camacho v. City of San Luis, 2009 WL 4912617, *4 (9th Cir. Dec. 2, 2009) (when parties

reached agreement via mediation, “it was the court’s prerogative not to retain jurisdiction over

any disputes” concerning that agreement); Restellini v. Amy Charles, Inc., 2009 WL 2579316,

*1, 4 (M.D. Fla. Aug. 17, 2009) (declining to retain jurisdiction to enforce settlement agreement

because breach of agreement would not involve any federal claim); Limbright v. Hofmeister, 553

F. Supp.2d 886, 892-93 (E.D. Mich. 2008) (“Generally, courts do not retain jurisdiction to

enforce settlement agreements because those controversies implicate state law and have little to

do with the original controversy that invoked federal subject-matter jurisdiction.”); International

Broth. of Elec. Workers, Local 90 v. National Elec. Contractors Ass’n, 2008 WL 918481, *15

(D. Conn. Mar. 31, 2008) (declining to retain jurisdiction to monitor enforcement of judgment

and noting that “[i]f the defendants fail to comply, in any way,” plaintiff “may exercise any of its

post-judgment procedural options to enforce the judgment”); Cross Media Marketing Corp. v.

Budget Marketing, Inc., 319 F. Supp.2d 482, 483 (S.D.N.Y. 2004) (“A district court is not

obliged to retain jurisdiction to enforce a settlement simply because parties may wish it to do

so.”); Rudinger v. Insurance Data Processing, Inc., 816 F. Supp. 371, 372 (E.D. Penn. 1993) (“if

courts want to retain jurisdiction, they may”).

-2-

courts to adjudicate.1

 This is particularly true where the underlying settlement document is a

confidential, private agreement that the Court had no involvement whatsoever in brokering. See,

e.g., Iverson v. Braintree Property Associates, L.P., 2008 WL 552652, *5-6 (D. Mass. Feb. 26,

2008) (retention of jurisdiction would “distort the Court’s role in civil litigation” by necessitating

that “public resources will be expended to enforce a confidential civil agreement” as to the bona

fides of which the court had never ruled); Carson Mfg. Co. v. Star Headlight & Lantern Co.,

2003 WL 21755517, *1 (S.D. Ind. July 28, 2003) (“Retaining jurisdiction over a dismissed

action for purposes of enforcing the settlement agreement is potentially problematic, particularly

when the settlement agreement” is confidential). There is no reason to believe that extraordinary

or unusual circumstances are present here that might warrant an ongoing commitment of judicial

resources to monitor and enforce the parties’ settlement agreement. In that regard, the parties

have made no showing that the procedural options and enforcement mechanisms generally

available under Alabama law are not sufficient to protect their interests in the event that future

insuperable problems may arise in the implementation of their settlement agreement. In the

absence of any special circumstances that might warrant retention of jurisdiction, the Court finds

Case 2:09-cv-00327-WS-C Document 39 Filed 05/19/10 Page 2 of 3
-3-

that the panoply of available state-law remedies should provide ample recourse to plaintiffs in

enforcing the agreed-upon settlement.

All of that said, it is unclear whether the various promissory notes, releases and so on

referenced in the undated settlement agreement have actually been executed, or whether

problems or difficulties have arisen to forestall the execution of those settlement documents. To

ensure that the parties have adequate time to consummate their settlement documentation (albeit

not necessarily the exchange of promised funds or the purchase of any property) before the right

of reinstatement expires, and in light of plaintiffs’ timely Motion to Reinstate, the reinstatement

period identified in the April 15 Order is hereby extended for an additional 30 days.

For all of the foregoing reasons, plaintiffs’ Motion to Reinstate Case for Settlement

Purposes (doc. 38), which is actually a motion for retention of jurisdiction, is denied without

prejudice; however, the deadline for any party to move for reinstatement of this action is

extended through and including June 14, 2010.

DONE and ORDERED this 19th day of May, 2010.

s/ WILLIAM H. STEELE 

CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:09-cv-00327-WS-C Document 39 Filed 05/19/10 Page 3 of 3