Opinion
Civil Action No. 00-2662.
July 28, 2004
MEMORANDUM/ORDER
Currently before the court are (1) plaintiff's motion to enforce settlement in the sum of $95,000, and an accompanying request for sanctions of $1500 to cover the cost of filing this motion, and (2) the defendant's response. The motion arises out of a diversity suit brought by the plaintiff in 2000 against its insurance carrier, Security Indemnity. The parties settled the matter in November 2001 and notified the court of the settlement through a letter dated November 30, 2001. On December 24, 2001, this court entered an order dismissing the underlying action with prejudice pursuant to Local Rule of Civil Procedure 41.1(b). Rule 41.1(b) provides:
Whenever in any civil action counsel shall notify the Clerk or the judge to whom the action is assigned that the issues between the parties have been settled, the Clerk shall, upon order of the judge to whom the case is assigned, enter an order dismissing the action with prejudice, without costs, pursuant to the agreement of counsel. Any such order of dismissal may be vacated, modified, or stricken from the record, for cause shown, upon the application of any party served within ninety (90) days of the entry of such order of dismissal.
"Unless a settlement is part of the record, incorporated into an order of the district court, or the district court has manifested an intent to retain jurisdiction, it has no power beyond the Rules of Civil Procedure to exercise jurisdiction over a petition to enforce a settlement." Sawka v. Healtheast, Inc., 989 F.2d 138, 141 (3d Cir. 1993). Absent any indication that the court intended to retain jurisdiction beyond the 90-day period set forth in Rule 41.1(b), and in light of the fact that the settlement is neither part of the record nor incorporated into an order of the court, it is clear that the court does not have jurisdiction to enforce the settlement.
Accordingly, the plaintiff's Motion to Enforce Settlement is DISMISSED and the plaintiff's request for sanctions against the defendant is DENIED.
If this court did have authority to entertain plaintiff's motion, exercise of such authority would be impeded, and perhaps wholly precluded, by the fact that Security Indemnity Insurance Company is currently in liquidation proceedings pursuant to N.J. Stat. Ann. § 17:30C-1, et seq. An order dated June 30, 2004 entered by Judge Neil Shuster of the Superior Court of New Jersey Chancery Division-Mercer County, indicates that the Commissioner of Banking and Insurance has been directed to liquidate Security Indemnity. The order also states that "all persons and entities shall be permanently enjoined from pursuing litigation against Security Indemnity, or from interfering with the Commissioner's efforts to liquidate Security Indemnity. . . ." It is apparent that plaintiff's efforts would be best directed at the liquidation proceedings in New Jersey.