Runser v. City of Dayton, Ohio

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON

JACK RUNSER, : : Plaintiff, : Case No. 3:21-cv-160 : v. : : Judge Thomas M. Rose CITY OF DAYTON, et al., : : Defendants. : ______________________________________________________________________________

ENTRY AND ORDER DENYING STIPULATED MOTION FOR DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE (DOC. NO. 61) ______________________________________________________________________________

This matter is before the Court on the Parties Stipulated Motion for Dismissal with Prejudice (“Motion”) (Doc. No. 61). In the Motion, the Parties states, “[t]he Parties further agree and request that the Court enter an Order retaining jurisdiction over the Parties’ settlement of this matter to the extent applicable and necessary.” (Id. at PageID 444.) As the Court ordered in its Order of Dismissal in this case, “Parties intending to preserve this Court’s jurisdiction to enforce the settlement should be aware of Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of America, 511 U.S. 375 (1994) and incorporate appropriate language in any substituted judgment entry. The undersigned also requires that, if the parties intend to preserve this Court’s jurisdiction, then they must submit to the Court a copy of the fully-executed settlement agreement (either by filing it on the docket or emailing it to his chambers).” (Doc. No. 58 at PageID 439.) The Court will not retain jurisdiction without first reviewing the fully-executed settlement agreement. Consequently, the Court DENIES Stipulated Motion for Dismissal with Prejudice (Doc. No. 61). DONE and ORDERED in Dayton, Ohio, this Tuesday, October 10, 2023. s/Thomas M. Rose ________________________________ THOMAS M. ROSE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE