Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Bartlett v. Cuyahoga County

United States District Court, N.D. Ohio

June 12, 2018

ADAM BARTLETT, Plaintiff,
v.
CUYAHOGA COUNTY, et al., Defendants.

          OPINION & ORDER [RESOLVING DOCS. 58, 59]

          JAMES S. GWIN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         On May 22, 2018, the Court granted the Cuyahoga County Defendants'[1] unopposed motion for summary judgment on all of Plaintiff Adam Bartlett's claims.[2] The Court entered a final judgment on this matter.[3] The case is now closed.

         Plaintiff Bartlett now moves for relief from judgment and moves to enforce a settlement that he says he reached with the County Defendants before the Court's May 22 order.[4] The County Defendants oppose both motions.[5]

         Plaintiff admits he failed to tell the Court that he had reached an oral agreement with the County Defendants as early as April 20, 2018.[6] However, Plaintiff argues he should be relieved from judgment for excusable neglect because the parties were in the process of finalizing the written settlement a few days before the May 22 order.[7] Plaintiff argues that the Court should enforce the settlement agreement because Plaintiff had signed the written agreement on May 22.[8] The County, however, notes that it never signed the written settlement agreement.[9]

         The Court first finds that no excusable neglect exists under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(1) to relieve Plaintiff from judgment. Plaintiff claims he reached an oral agreement more than a month before the Court issued its May 22 order. In that time, the deadline to oppose the County Defendants' summary judgment motion passed; and Plaintiff and his counsel[10] never informed the Court of the possible settlement to avoid an adverse ruling. The Court will not excuse this neglect.[11]

         The Court next finds that it lacks jurisdiction to enforce any possible settlement agreement.

         After a final judgment entry, the Court does not have ancillary jurisdiction over a motion to enforce a settlement agreement unless the dismissal order (1) contains a separate provision retaining jurisdiction in the district court over the settlement agreement or (2) incorporates the settlement agreement's terms.[12]

         The Court's final judgment dismissing the case did neither. And because the dispute concerns a separate and unrelated breach-of-contract claim among non-diverse parties, the Court has no independent subject matter jurisdiction over the matter.[13] The enforcement of any settlement agreement is more properly pursued in the state courts.

         The Court DENIES the motion for relief from judgment and DENIES the motion to enforce.[14]

         IT IS SO ORDERED

---------

Notes:

[1] The Cuyahoga County Defendants include C.O. Corporal Bailey, C.O. John Mirrotto, C.O. Brian Cartwright, Cuyahoga County, and various John and Jane Doe ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.