Trustees of the Indiana State Council of Roofers Health and Welfare Fund v. CMT Roofing, LLC
4:16-cv-00087
N.D. Ind.Feb 28, 2019Background
- Plaintiffs (trustees of two union benefit funds) sued Defendant CMT Roofing for delinquent fringe-benefit contributions in 2016.
- Parties executed a May 2018 Settlement Agreement establishing a repayment schedule for $86,836.16 in total contributions; Defendant had paid $40,733.39 as of Feb. 14, 2019.
- Parties jointly moved to have the court enter a Consent Judgment reflecting the remaining balance ($46,102.77) and incorporating the Settlement Agreement by reference.
- The proposed Consent Judgment included (a) payment terms in a recitals paragraph, (b) language that the court “retains jurisdiction,” and (c) a clause that plaintiffs would not execute on the judgment unless defendant defaulted and would provide at least seven days’ notice to cure.
- The parties did not file the underlying Settlement Agreement on the docket, and they emailed the proposed Consent Judgment to the court instead of attaching it as an exhibit to the motion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court should enter the parties’ proposed Consent Judgment | Parties jointly asked entry to enforce the Settlement Agreement and remaining payments | Agreed with plaintiffs; jointly submitted proposed Consent Judgment | Denied without prejudice; parties may refile an amended motion that complies with court requirements or dismiss with prejudice |
| Whether the motion adequately addressed the Kasper factors (constitutionality, third-party interests, court resources) | Implicit via proposed judgment’s recitals | Same | Insufficient; the motion must expressly explain why consent judgment satisfies those considerations |
| Whether the proposed Consent Judgment was properly filed/served | Parties emailed the proposed Consent Judgment to the court | Same | Improper; proposed judgment must be attached as an exhibit to the motion per CM/ECF requirements |
| Whether the consent judgment may incorporate the Settlement Agreement by reference (Rule 65(d)) | Parties attempted to incorporate terms by reference rather than including them in the order | Same | Impermissible; Rule 65(d) requires an injunction/consent order to state terms specifically and be self-contained; all enforceable terms must appear in the order itself |
| Use of “court retains jurisdiction” language | Parties included retention language to allow enforcement | Same | Unnecessary/superfluous; court automatically retains enforcement jurisdiction where appropriate, so the clause should be omitted or clarified |
Key Cases Cited
- Metro. Hous. Dev. Corp. v. Vill. of Arlington Heights, 616 F.2d 1006 (7th Cir. 1980) (favors and encourages settlements)
- United States v. Alshabkhoun, 277 F.3d 930 (7th Cir. 2002) (definition and effect of consent judgment)
- Fisher v. United States, 864 F.2d 434 (7th Cir. 1988) (court’s enforcement jurisdiction and related principles)
- Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375 (1994) (jurisdiction to enforce settlements)
- Blue Cross & Blue Shield Ass’n v. Marshfield Clinic, 467 F.3d 636 (7th Cir. 2006) (consent-judgment enforcement must comply with Rule 65(d))
- Dupuy v. Samuels, 465 F.3d 757 (7th Cir. 2006) (injunctions must be self-contained; cannot incorporate by reference)
- Lynch, Inc. v. SamataMason Inc., 279 F.3d 487 (7th Cir. 2002) (settlement enforcement and effect of consent decrees)
- United States v. Apex Oil Co., Inc., 579 F.3d 734 (7th Cir. 2009) (strict compliance with Rule 65(d) required)