Labor – Enforcement

Listen to this article

U.S. Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit

Civil

Labor – Enforcement

Absent a Rule 60(b) motion, the district court lacked jurisdiction to enforce a settlement.

“The magistrate judge was thus correct to conclude that Jones had not filed a Rule 60(b) motion and that the court lacked jurisdiction to enforce the parties’ agreement. See Kokkonen, 511 U.S. at 381–82. The question is what step should have come next: disposition of the new request for enforcement action, or something else? The answer is “something else.” Once the judge saw that Jones’s submission was not part of the litigation covered by the parties’ consents, he should have recognized that he did not have authority to issue a dispositive ruling, even one ordering dismissal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Jones was bringing a new lawsuit. The magistrate judge could dispose of that new action only if it was assigned to him by a district judge and the par-ties furnished new consents. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1); FED. R. CIV. P. 73(a); Stevo v. Frasor, 662 F.3d 880, 883 (7th Cir. 2011); Silberstein v. Silberstein, 859 F.2d 40, 41–42 (7th Cir. 1988).”

Dismissed.

14-1482 Jones v. Association of Flight Attendants

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Mason, Mag. J., Wood, J.

Full Text