Owens v. K&M Machine Works LLC
4:14-cv-01052
S.D. Tex.Apr 13, 2015Background
- Plaintiff Khalid Owens filed an FLSA overtime suit and later filed an unopposed motion to voluntarily dismiss all claims with prejudice, stating the parties had settled.
- The court adopted Plaintiff’s proposed dismissal order and entered a final dismissal on December 18, 2014; the dismissal became final on January 17, 2015.
- After the dismissal became final, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Breach and moved to enforce the alleged settlement agreement.
- Defendants’ counsel moved to withdraw as counsel after dismissal.
- The court raised sua sponte the issue of its subject-matter jurisdiction to enforce the settlement because the dismissal order did not retain jurisdiction or incorporate the settlement terms.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court has jurisdiction to enforce the settlement after the case was dismissed with prejudice without retaining jurisdiction or incorporating settlement terms | Owens: district courts have power to enforce settlements reached in cases pending before them; court awareness of settlement suffices | Defendants: did not contest jurisdiction in filings; implicitly rely on dismissal ending case | Court: No — ancillary jurisdiction to enforce a settlement exists only if the dismissal order incorporates the settlement or expressly retains jurisdiction; here it did neither, so court lacks jurisdiction |
| Whether movants’ requests (enforce settlement; withdraw counsel) should be granted | Owens: seeks enforcement of settlement for breach remedy | Defendants’ counsel: seeks leave to withdraw as counsel | Court: Denied enforcement for lack of jurisdiction; denied motion to withdraw as moot |
Key Cases Cited
- Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375 (ancillary jurisdiction to enforce settlement exists only if dismissal order retains jurisdiction or incorporates settlement)
- Hospitality House, Inc. v. Gilbert, 298 F.3d 424 (5th Cir.) (explains Kokkonen’s rule on making settlement part of dismissal order)
- SmallBizPros, Inc. v. MacDonald, 618 F.3d 458 (5th Cir.) (district court may retain or incorporate settlement terms in dismissal order to preserve enforcement jurisdiction)
- Howery v. Allstate Ins. Co., 243 F.3d 912 (5th Cir.) (federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction; party seeking federal forum bears burden)
- Giles v. NYLCare Health Plans, Inc., 172 F.3d 332 (5th Cir.) (court may raise subject-matter jurisdiction sua sponte and must dismiss if lacking jurisdiction)
