Barnes v. Jolly

DECISION AND ORDER

BACKGROUND

The instant litigation was commenced nearly 12 years ago by pro se plaintiff Jessie J. Barnes (“Plaintiff”), an inmate in the custody of the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision (“DOCCS”). (See Dkt. 1). The action arises out of incidents at the Monroe County Jail (the “Jail”) in 2008 and 2009 and the defendants are employees of Monroe County (“the County”). (See id.).

The matter was previously scheduled to go to trial in February of 2020, but the trial date was adjourned to November 16, 2020, at Plaintiff's request. (Dkt. 354). On July 27, 2020, the Court granted an adjournment of the November 2020 trial date, again at Plaintiff's request, due to the COVID-19 pandemic. (Dk. 361; Dkt. 364).

Plaintiff thereafter sent a letter to the Court dated August 7, 2020, in which he indicated that he was interested in mediating the matter. (Dkt. 365). A settlement conference was held before Magistrate Judge Mark W. Pedersen on April 16, 2021, and a settlement agreement was reached. (Dkt. 374). Specifically, Plaintiff agreed to settle the

matter in return for a payment of $9, 900.00, after obtaining confirmation that he would not have to serve any remaining time in the special housing unit if he were to return to the Jail and that he did not owe any money to the County from his prior detention at the Jail. (Dkt. 390 at 6). The parties agreed to these terms on the record and Judge Pedersen indicated that the matter was resolved. (Id. at 6-8).

On May 10, 2021, Plaintiff filed a motion asking Judge Pedersen to order that the settlement amount be paid to his power of attorney and not into his inmate account at DOCCS. (Dkt. 375). Defendants opposed this request. (Dkt. 378; Dkt. 379).

Plaintiff executed a written Settlement Agreement and Release on June 3, 2021, in which he confirmed his agreement to release the claims in this matter in exchange for a payment of $9, 900.00. (Dkt. 381 at 5-6). The Settlement Agreement and Release was thereafter executed by defense counsel of behalf of Defendants. (Dkt. 395 at 79-81).

On August 9, 2021, Judge Pedersen entered an Order denying Plaintiff's motion seeking to have payment made to his power of attorney and directing Defendants to make the settlement payment to Plaintiff's inmate account at DOCCS. (Dkt. 389). Plaintiff filed a motion on September 13, 2021, asking the Court to vacate Judge Pedersen's Order. (Dkt. 393). Defendants filed a response in opposition on October 5, 2021. (Dkt. 395).

On October 14, 2021, Plaintiff filed a motion for sanctions. (Dkt. 396). In particular, Plaintiff seeks sanctions against defense counsel pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(c)(2), claiming that he has engaged in unlawful conduct by refusing to release the $9, 900.00 settlement payment to the third-party designated by Plaintiff. (Id.). Defendants filed a response in opposition on October 21, 2021. (Dkt. 397).

DISCUSSION

The instant dispute relates to the enforceability of the settlement agreement placed on the record before Judge Pedersen on April 16, 2021, and memorialized in the written Settlement Agreement and Release. In particular, Plaintiff contends that he is free under the agreement to designate a third party to whom payment shall be made, while Defendants take that position that they “agreed to pay a settlement to the Plaintiff directly and did not agree to pay any other party.” (Dkt. 395 at 2). Defendants thus state that they intend to send payment directly to Plaintiff, while acknowledging that “when any payment is sent to the Plaintiff, it will be taken by NYSDOCCS and applied to a debt that Plaintiff owes to NYSDOCCS, pursuant to NYSDOCCS policies and directives.” (Id.).

As an initial matter, the Court finds that it has jurisdiction to resolve the instant dispute. Because “[f]ederal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction” and “possess only that power authorized by Constitution and statute, ” there is not “automatic jurisdiction” over enforcement of settlement agreements that result in the dismissal of a federal case. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377, 381 (1994). However, the analysis is different where a settlement dispute arises in a matter that remains pending. As the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has explained:

[W]here, as in Kokkonen, a party seeks to enforce a settlement agreement after the district court has dismissed the case, the district court lacks jurisdiction over the agreement unless the court either incorporated the agreement's terms into the dismissal order or expressly retained jurisdiction over the agreement. If, however, a party seeks to enforce a settlement while the underlying suit remains pending, then the district court has jurisdiction to enforce the related settlement.

T St. Dev., LLC v. Dereje & Dereje, 586 F.3d 6, 11 (D.C. Cir. 2009); see also Serta Simmons Bedding, LLC v. Casper Sleep Inc., 950 F.3d 849, 855 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (“Other circuits have . . . held that ‘nothing in Kokkonen precludes district courts from enforcing settlements that occur during litigation.'” (quoting T St., 586 F.3d at 10, and citing Roman-Oliveras v. Puerto Rico Elec. Power Auth., 797 F.3d 83, 86 (1st Cir. 2015), Bryan v. Erie Cty. Office of Children & Youth, 752 F.3d 316, 322 (3d Cir. 2014), and Bailey v. Potter, 478 F.3d 409, 412 (D.C. Cir. 2007)).

Prior to the Supreme Court's decision in Kokkonen, the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that “[a] district court has the power to enforce summarily, on motion, a settlement agreement reached in a case that was pending before it.” Meetings & Expositions, Inc. v. Tandy Corp., 490 F.2d 714, 717 (2d Cir. 1974). While the Second Circuit has not revisited the matter in a published decision post-Kokkonen, it quoted the statement from Meetings & Expositions set forth above with approval in BCM Dev., LLC v. Oprandy, 490 Fed.Appx. 409, 409 (2d Cir. 2013). The Court finds the analysis in the cases cited above persuasive and, based on the decisions in Meetings & Expositions and BCM, believes that the Second Circuit would find the same if presented with the issue. See Bluelink Mktg. LLC v. Carney, No. 16-CV-7151 (JLC), 2017 WL 4083602, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 15, 2017) (citing BCM and finding that “because the case was open when the pending motions were filed, the Court . . . has jurisdiction over this [settlement] dispute.”). Accordingly, the Court finds no barrier to an exercise of jurisdiction under the circumstances presented here.

The Court next considers the appropriate standard of review with respect to Judge Pedersen's...