Suleiman v. Pella Corporation, No. 2:2018cv00261 - Document 86 (N.D. Ind. 2023)

Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER: Although the Plaintiff filed her motion after the Court dismissed the case, the Court recognizes that the Plaintiff previously indicated settlement between the parties and has provided details of that settlement in the instant m otion. The Court recognizes the settlement and finds: The settlement amount of $7,500 that Defendant Pella Corporation has agreed to pay in return for a release of liability is fair and reasonable; Attorney Robert A. Montgomery is entitled to and shall receive attorneys fees in the amount of $2,500, along with reimbursement for expenses attributable to this lawsuit in the amount of $2,500; Net proceeds of $2,500 are distributable to the Estate of the Minor Plaintiff, J.S., and are to be placed into an interest-bearing account to be used exclusively for the use of J.S. for tutoring and medical treatment of J.S.s injuries. For the foregoing reasons, the Court hereby DIRECTS the Clerk of Court to TERMINATE the Plaintiffs Petition to Compromise and Settle Minors Claim for Personal Injuries 85 . Signed by Judge Theresa L Springmann on 12/12/2023. (sej)

Download PDF
Suleiman v. Pella Corporation Doc. 86 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA HAMMOND DIVISION SOPHIA SULEIMAN, Individually and as Mother and Custodial Parent of her minor child, J.S., Plaintiff, v. CAUSE NO.: 2:18-CV-261-TLS-APR PELLA CORPORATION, Defendant. OPINION AND ORDER This matter is before the Court on the Plaintiff’s Petition to Compromise and Settle Minor’s Claim for Personal Injuries [ECF No. 85]. However, the Court dismissed this case with prejudice on September 28, 2023, granting the Plaintiff’s agreed motion to dismiss. ECF Nos. 83, 84. If a court does not “expressly retain jurisdiction” or “make the terms of the settlement agreements part of its judgment” when dismissing a case pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2), then the court cannot later exercise jurisdiction over the settlement. Hill v. Baxter Healthcare Corp., 405 F.3d 572, 576–77 (7th Cir. 2005). “Absent such action, . . . enforcement of the settlement agreement is for state courts, unless there is some independent basis for jurisdiction.” Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 382 (1994). Thus, the Court lacks jurisdiction to rule on the Plaintiff’s motion. Although the Plaintiff filed her motion after the Court dismissed the case, the Court recognizes that the Plaintiff previously indicated settlement between the parties and has provided details of that settlement in the instant motion. The Court recognizes the settlement and finds: 1) The settlement amount of $7,500 that Defendant Pella Corporation has agreed to pay in return for a release of liability is fair and reasonable; Dockets.Justia.com 2) Attorney Robert A. Montgomery is entitled to and shall receive attorney’s fees in the amount of $2,500, along with reimbursement for expenses attributable to this lawsuit in the amount of $2,500; 3) Net proceeds of $2,500 are distributable to the Estate of the Minor Plaintiff, J.S., and are to be placed into an interest-bearing account to be used exclusively for the use of J.S. for tutoring and medical treatment of J.S.’s injuries. For the foregoing reasons, the Court hereby DIRECTS the Clerk of Court to TERMINATE the Plaintiff’s Petition to Compromise and Settle Minor’s Claim for Personal Injuries [ECF No. 85]. SO ORDERED on December 12, 2023. s/ Theresa L. Springmann JUDGE THERESA L. SPRINGMANN UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.