Hall v. Inmate Services Corporation
This text of Hall v. Inmate Services Corporation (Hall v. Inmate Services Corporation) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. Arkansas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS NORTHERN DIVISION
CHRISTINA HALL, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated PLAINTIFF
No. 3:18-cv-235-DPM
INMATE SERVICES CORPORATION; and RANDY CAGLIE, JR. DEFENDANTS
DAVID DILLARD and NICOLAS WILLIAMS PLAINTIFFS
v. No. 2:19-cv-150-DPM
INMATE SERVICES CORPORATION; and RANDY CAGLE, JR. DEFENDANTS ORDER Hall’s 27 January 2023 motion to extend the Court's subject matter jurisdiction to enforce the parties’ settlement agreement did not come to the Court’s attention until some days after it was filed. The Court concludes it has power to act in regards to the parties’ settlement because the motion was filed before the Court's jurisdiction expired. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Insurance Co. of America, 511 U.S. 375 (1994); 4:20 Communications, Inc. v. Paradigm Co., 336 F.3d 775 (8th Cir. 2003). Motion, Doc. 93, granted. The Court retains jurisdiction until 27 March 2023 to enforce the parties’ settlement.
So Ordered.
D.P. Marshall Jr. United States District Judge 3 wch LORS
-2-
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Hall v. Inmate Services Corporation, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hall-v-inmate-services-corporation-ared-2023.