Fisher v. Columbus, 2:24-cv-00150

Fisher filed federal and state claims in Jan 2024 after a Columbus police investigation.
Fisher was removed from sergeant position in Sept 2021; investigation addressed alleged retaliation against a Black officer.
Marc Fishel conducted the investigation and issued a report finding Fisher retaliated.
Fisher retired following the investigation; later media publicity affected her retirement status.
Parties engaged in settlement negotiations starting June 2024; offers and counteroffers followed, with Fisher accepting on Sept 4, 2024.
The court later dismissed federal claims on Dec 11, 2024 and declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims; no settlement was docketed or incorporated in the dismissal; Fisher moved to enforce the settlement, which the court denied.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a settlement exists and its material terms.	Fisher accepted the offer; mutual release requested; all material terms present.	No meeting of the minds on material term (mutual release); no valid enforceable agreement.	No; court cannot enforce without a settlement under jurisdictional basis.
Whether the district court has subject matter jurisdiction to enforce the settlement.	Court has ancillary jurisdiction to enforce settlement.	No ancillary jurisdiction since litigation not pending and no dismissal order retention.	Lacks jurisdiction to enforce; enforcement must be in state court as a breach-of-contract claim.
Whether ancillary jurisdiction exists despite the dismissal order lacking retention language.	Retention/incorporation implied by settlement discussions.	No incorporation or retention language in dismissal order.	Ancillary jurisdiction not present; not enforceable in this court.
Whether incorporation of the settlement terms in the dismissal order or retention language would permit enforcement.	Dismissal order could retain jurisdiction.	No such language or incorporation.	Enforcement cannot be based on dismissal order; requires separate action.
Appropriate forum for enforcing a settlement when not within this court’s jurisdiction.	State court breach-of-contract action feasible.	State court appropriate venue for such enforcement.	Fisher must pursue breach of contract in state court.

RE/MAX Int’l., Inc. v. Realty One, Inc., 271 F.3d 633 (6th Cir. 2001) (enforcing settlements and related jurisdictional considerations)
Kukla v. Nat’l Distillers Prods. Co., 483 F.2d 619 (6th Cir. 1973) (need for evidentiary hearing when material facts are disputed; conditions for summary enforcement)
Aro Corp. v. Allied Witan Co., 531 F.2d 1368 (6th Cir. 1976) (settlements can be determinable as a matter of law for enforcement)
Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375 (U.S. 1994) (court must have jurisdiction; enforcement tied to dismissal order or separate basis)
Therma-Scan, Inc. v. Thermoscan, Inc., 217 F.3d 414 (6th Cir. 2000) (inherent power to enforce settlements of litigation before court)
Wyche v. Procter & Gamble, 772 F. Supp. 982 (S.D. Ohio 1990) (inherent power to enforce settlements of litigation pending before court)