Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania v. The Truth and…

Background

The court received the parties’ joint motion asking it to enter judgment based on their proposed consent judgment. The proposed judgment stated that the court would retain continuing jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter of the action to interpret and enforce the final order and judgment on consent.

Court’s Analysis

The court stated that its individual civil-case rules generally provide that it will not retain jurisdiction to enforce settlement agreements. It also said the parties had not identified a reason why the case could be dismissed only under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2), which allows a court to impose terms and conditions when ordering a dismissal.

The court explained that the parties could instead settle under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) on terms of their choice and would be bound by their stipulated voluntary dismissal. Such a dismissal by stipulation does not require judicial approval. The court further explained that entering the proposed judgment while retaining enforcement jurisdiction would give the agreement the court’s judicial imprimatur, meaning the court would formally approve and lend its authority to the agreement.

Order

Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil ordered the parties to appear for a telephone conference on September 17, 2020, at noon to discuss the proposed judgment. The order did not enter the proposed judgment, retain jurisdiction, or decide the underlying dispute.