UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY 

__________________________

Bonnie Stanton, : 

 

 Plaintiff, : Hon. Joseph H. Rodriguez 

 

 v. : Civil Action No. 11-2525 (JHR-JS) 

 

Deptford Township Board of Education, : MEMORANDUM 

 & ORDER 

 Defendant. : 

____________________________ 

 This matter having come before the Court on the application of Richard L. 

Goldstein, Esquire, attorney for Defendant, Deptford Township Board of Education, for 

an Order to enforce settlement; and 

 On July 12, 2012, “it having been reported to the Court that the above-captioned 

action has been settled;” and 

 The Court having entered an order dismissing the action “without costs and 

without prejudice to the right, upon motion and good cause shown, within 60 days, to 

reopen this action if the settlement is not consummated;” and 

 The Order further stating, “If any party shall move to set aside this Order of 

Dismissal as provided in the above paragraph or pursuant to the provisions of Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 60(b), in deciding such motion the Court retains jurisdiction of the matter to the 

extent necessary to enforce the terms and conditions of any settlement entered into 

between the parties;” and 
 On December 4, 2012, Defendant having filed the instant application for the 

enforcement of the settlement agreement because Plaintiff has allegedly failed to 

provide the necessary settlement documents to Defendant’s council; and 

 The Court lacking subject matter jurisdiction to hear Defendant’s motion because 

the Court’s Order of Dismissal did not incorporate the terms of the settlement, see

Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of America, 511 U.S. 375, 381, 114 S. Ct. 1673, 128 L. 

Ed. 2d. 391 (1994) (holding that enforcement of a settlement agreement requires an 

independent basis for jurisdiction, but acknowledging ancillary jurisdiction if “the 

parties' obligation to comply with the terms of the settlement agreement had been made 

part of the order of dismissal -- either by separate provision (such as a provision 

"retaining jurisdiction" over the settlement agreement) or by incorporating the terms of 

the settlement agreement in the order.”); Shaffer v. GTE North, Inc., 284 F.3d 500, 503 

(3d Cir. 2002) (finding “[c]ounsel having reported to the court that this action has been 

settled” insufficient incorporation to retain jurisdiction over settlement enforcement); 

In re Phar-Mor, Inc. Sec. Litig., 172 F.3d 270, 274 (3d Cir. 1999) (citing Miener v. 

Missouri Dep't of Mental Health, 62 F.3d 1126, 1128 (8th Cir. 1995) (deeming “mere 

reference” to a settlement not enough to retain jurisdiction over enforcement); and 

 The Court further noting that Defendants have not requested reinstatement of 

the action, which the Order’s expired allowance of sixty days “to reopen this action if 

settlement is not consummated” may have permitted,1 see Shaffer 284 F.3d at 504 

(noting that a similar provision may have allowed for reinstatement of the suit within 

 

1 Moreover, Defendant has not identified any authority for the Court to set aside the 60 

day limitation. See, e.g., Trian Group, Ltd. P’ship v. Accident and Cas. Ins. Co., Civ. No. 

98-1026 (GEB), 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 42931, at *6-7 (D.N.J. June 26, 2006) (setting 

aside an identical 60 day limitation order pursuant to Rule 60(b)). 
sixty days, but an “entirely different relief” is sought through settlement enforcement); 

and 

 The Court also noting that Defendants’ recourse may be to file a new action for 

breach of contract in state court, see Brass Smith, LLC v. RPI Indus., Inc., 827 F. Supp. 

2d 377, 380 (D.N.J. 2011) (“A settlement agreement is a contract, and a dispute over the 

settlement agreement is governed by state contract law.”); accordingly, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED on this 26th day of June that Defendant’s Motion 

to Enforce Settlement [19] is DENIED. 

_s/ Joseph H. Rodriguez______ 

 HON. JOSEPH H. RODRIGUEZ, 

 United States District Judge