Opinion ID: 201473
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: DiPaola's Motion to Enforce

Text: 5 When Fafel refused to sign a stipulation of dismissal in his state court contempt action or to assent to a motion to vacate the state court judgment of reinstatement and back pay based on Fafel's April 2000 termination, DiPaola moved in federal district court on June 11, 2003, to enforce the Rule 68 judgment through an injunction prohibiting Fafel from pursuing his state court action. That same day, judgment was entered in the federal court action in Fafel's favor. Because the order of dismissal entered on May 15, 2003, clearly failed to comply with either the terms of Rule 68 or the terms of the offer of judgment filed with the court, 1 we treat that order as superseded by the judgment that was properly entered on June 11, 2003, [i]n accordance with Plaintiff's acceptance of the Defendant's Offer of Judgement, which in turn provided that judgment shall enter in the amount of $150,000 ... in the case of Leonard Fafel v. James V. DiPaola Individually, and in his capacity as Middlesex Sheriff [,] and ... plaintiff's claims for punitive damages and injunctive relief shall be dismissed with prejudice. 6 On August 19, 2003, the district court held a hearing on DiPaola's motion to enforce. 2 DiPaola argued that Fafel was precluded from pursuing reinstatement through his state court contempt action because, under the terms of the Rule 68 offer of judgment that Fafel had accepted, his identical prayer for injunctive relief in the form of reinstatement in the federal court action had been dismissed with prejudice. Similarly, DiPaola argued, Fafel was precluded from pursuing back pay in state court through his contempt action because, again under the terms of the Rule 68 offer, Fafel's acceptance of payment of $150,000 satisf[ied] all claims made and relief sought by the plaintiff against the defendant arising from or related to [his] April 2000 termination. 3 7 Observing that Fafel had lost any entitlement to back pay (the amount of which had never been calculated) in state court by accepting DiPaola's offer of a $150,000 federal court judgment in satisfaction of all claims made and relief sought ... arising from or related to [his] April 2000 termination, the district court enjoined Fafel — deliberately parrot[ing] the terms of the offer of judgment he had accepted — from taking any action to seek relief or make claims against defendant arising from or related to the April 2000 termination of the plaintiff from his employment in the Middlesex Sheriff's Department. 4 When Fafel objected on the ground that the court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over his action in state court, the district court responded, I have jurisdiction over my judgment[,] and I'm enforcing this judgment with respect to all claims made and relief sought by the plaintiff against the defendant arising from or related to the April[ ] 2000 termination of the plaintiff.