Opinion
1:03-cv-0090-JDT-TAB.
July 28, 2003
ORDER ON PURPORTED RETENTION OF JURISDICTION
On July 2, 2003, the parties filed an agreed motion to dismiss with prejudice. By way of this motion, the parties asked the Court to dismiss this action with prejudice but retain jurisdiction as may be necessary to enforce the settlement. [Docket No. 20]. The Court held a pretrial conference with counsel July 24, 2003 to inquire as to the reason why the parties desired the Court to retain jurisdiction, and whether the settlement agreement contained a confidentiality clause. The parties advised the Court that the agreement did contain a confidentiality clause, and that they desired the Court to retain jurisdiction as may be necessary to enforce the settlement.
Retaining jurisdiction over a dismissed action for purposes of enforcing the settlement agreement is potentially problematic, particularly when the settlement agreement contains a confidentiality clause. See Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Insurance Co. of America, 511 U.S. 375, 378-81 (holding that enforcement of a settlement agreement requires its own basis for jurisdiction, but noting in dicta that the result would be different if the parties' obligation to comply with the terms of the settlement agreement had been made part of the order of dismissal). Cf. Lynch, Inc. v. Samatamason Inc. 279 F.3d 487, 489 (7th Cir. 2002) (court's retention of jurisdiction after dismissing action with prejudice had no significance; having dismissed the entire action, the court had no jurisdiction to do anything further) with Jessup v. Luther, 277 F.3d 926, 929-30 (7th Cir. 2002) (approval of settlement has no legal significance unless that approval is embodied in a judicial order retaining jurisdiction of the case in order to enforce the settlement; where judge approves settlement and purports to retain jurisdiction, the settlement is presumptively a public document). See also L. Kratky, "Secrecy by Consent: The Use and Limits of Confidentiality in the Pursuit of Settlement", 74 Notre Dame L. Rev 283 (1999) (examining the uses and limits of confidentiality in the settlement of civil litigation); M. Denlow, "Federal Court Jurisdiction in the Enforcement of Settlement Agreements: Kokkonen Revisited," 2003 Fed. Cts. L. Rev. 2 (2003) (discussing language in dismissal orders that courts have found acceptable and unacceptable for federal courts to retain jurisdiction to enforce a settlement).
In light of the foregoing, it appears that the Court cannot retain jurisdiction over this action in the manner requested by the parties. Accordingly, within 10 days from the date of this order, the parties shall either file a stipulation of dismissal (without any language purporting that the Court retain jurisdiction), or otherwise advise the Court as to how they wish to proceed with respect to the relief requested in the pending motion to dismiss.
SO ORDERED.