Becker v. Sherman

Summary

The court recommends denying Plaintiff Joseph Becker’s motion to reopen a closed civil rights action to pursue alleged breaches of a settlement agreement. It concludes that the dismissal order did not retain federal jurisdiction or incorporate the settlement agreement, so enforcement must generally be pursued in state court. The court also determines that relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6) is unavailable because Plaintiff did not show a timely motion or extraordinary circumstances.

Holdings

1. The court lacked federal subject-matter jurisdiction to enforce the alleged settlement agreement because the dismissal order did not expressly retain jurisdiction and neither the stipulation nor the order incorporated the settlement agreement.
2. Plaintiff was not entitled to reopen the case under Rule 60(b)(6) because the motion was not shown to have been brought within a reasonable time and Plaintiff did not establish extraordinary circumstances warranting relief.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the court retained subject-matter jurisdiction to enforce an alleged settlement agreement after dismissing the action with prejudice without expressly retaining jurisdiction or incorporating the agreement into the dismissal order.
2. Whether Plaintiff was entitled to reopen the closed action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6) based on alleged repudiation or breach of the settlement agreement.

Disposition

other