United Steelworkers of America v. Libby, McNeill & Libby, Inc., 88-1463
| Decision Date | 13 February 1990 |
| Docket Number | No. 88-1463,88-1463 |
| Citation | 895 F.2d 421 |
| Parties | 133 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2627, 114 Lab.Cas. P 11,924, 15 Fed.R.Serv.3d 1156 UNITED STEELWORKERS OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. LIBBY, McNEILL & LIBBY, INC. and Nestle Enterprises, Inc., Defendants-Appellees. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit |
William H. Schmelling, Chicago, Ill. and Carl B. Frankel, Pittsburgh, Pa., for plaintiff-appellant.
Ira M. Shepard and Paul M. Heylman, Schmeltzer, Aptaker & Sheppard, Washington, D.C., for defendants-appellees.
Before FLAUM, RIPPLE and KANNE, Circuit Judges.
A settlement agreement entered into between the parties in this case led to the district court's entry of an order of dismissal. Two years after the dismissal, the district judge was asked by the Steelworkers union to clarify the parties' settlement agreement. The district judge initially determined that he had jurisdiction to interpret the language of the settlement agreement. The Steelworkers' motion for clarification, however, was ultimately denied. We find that the district court did not have jurisdiction to interpret the settlement agreement and, consequently, affirm the denial of Steelworkers' motion for clarification of that agreement.
On June 30, 1980, the Steelworkers union commenced an action in federal district court against Libby and its parent corporation, Nestle, pursuant to Sec. 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947, 29 U.S.C. Sec. 185 (1982), for the alleged breach of the parties' collective bargaining agreement. The Steelworkers maintained that Libby was obligated under the collective bargaining agreement to pay certain economic benefits to former employees of Libby's then-closed Chicago Can Plant. Libby and Nestle denied all liability and filed a counterclaim.
After extensive discovery, the parties entered into negotiations to settle all claims The Court having approved the Settlement Agreement, Release and Covenant Not to Sue, entered into by the parties on this 10th day of November, 1982,
and dispose of the action. The result of these negotiations was a "Settlement Agreement, Release, and Covenant Not to Sue" entered into by the parties on the eve of trial. This settlement agreement was presented to the district judge who approved and signed it on November 10, 1982. An order dismissing both Steelworkers' complaint and Libby's counterclaim with prejudice was signed by the district judge on November 10th and, thereafter, entered on the docket on November 12, 1982. The order of dismissal reads as follows:
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the Complaint and the Counterclaim be and hereby are dismissed, with prejudice, each party bearing its own costs and attorneys' fees.
Under the terms of the settlement agreement, which was made part of the record, the parties agreed to resolve and discharge with prejudice all the claims that were or could have been asserted by the Steelworkers with regard to Libby and Nestle's operation and closing of the Chicago Can Plant. As early as January of 1983, however, disagreement over the proper interpretation of certain provisions of the settlement agreement arose between the parties.
In January of 1985, efforts to resolve this dispute over interpretation came to an impasse. This fact brings us to the proceedings around which this appeal revolves. On January 16, 1985, more than two years after this case had been dismissed with prejudice, Steelworkers sought the assistance of the district court in interpreting the provisions of the settlement agreement. The assistance sought came in the form of a "Motion for Clarification of Settlement Agreement." This motion was submitted to the same district judge who had earlier ordered the case dismissed. The Steelworkers' motion to clarify requested the district court "to establish a procedure for the resolution of those disputes either by this court or by a neutral third party." Arguing that the court lacked jurisdiction, Libby and Nestle objected to the district court entertaining the Steelworkers' request to clarify this settlement agreement.
The district judge made a preliminary determination that he had jurisdiction to interpret the agreement's provisions. Evidentiary hearings were held and briefs and affidavits were submitted by the parties. Libby continued to argue that the court lacked jurisdiction to clarify the settlement agreement. Based on the evidence presented and the briefs in support and opposition of the motion, the district judge ultimately denied the Steelworkers' motion for clarification and entered a final order to that effect. It is from this denial that Steelworkers appeal.
The dispositive issue is whether the district court's outright dismissal 1 of this case in 1982 left any basis for a subsequent exercise of jurisdiction with regard to a settlement agreement independently negotiated and arrived at by the parties.
In response to the Steelworkers' 1985 motion for clarification of the settlement agreement, the district judge, at least initially, believed that he had jurisdiction to interpret its language. He indicated this was so because he had affixed his signature to the settlement agreement and given it his approval. The district judge so concluded notwithstanding Libby and Nestle's jurisdictional arguments to the contrary. 2 Nevertheless, the dispositive decision in the case came later when the district judge entered an order denying the requested clarification sought by the Steelworkers union, possibly because he had determined in his final analysis that he did not in fact have jurisdiction to interpret the settlement agreement. We may do more than speculate on the reason for the district court's refusal to grant the Steelworkers' motion, however. Every federal appellate court has a special obligation to satisfy itself of the jurisdiction of the lower federal courts in a case under review. Bender v. Williamsport Area School Dist., 475 U.S. 534, 541, 106 S.Ct. 1326, 1331, 89 L.Ed.2d 501 (1986). Thus, if we determine through our jurisdictional review that, as Libby and Nestle had argued below, the district court was without jurisdiction to clarify the settlement agreement, the denial of that motion by the district court may be affirmed.
In McCall-Bey v. Franzen, 777 F.2d 1178 (7th Cir.1985), we addressed the issue of whether an independent basis of federal...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ryan v. Dow Chemical Co.
...is retained for a particular purpose." McCall-Bey v. Franzen, 777 F.2d 1178, 1190 (7th Cir.1985); see United SteelWorkers v. Libby, McNeil & Libby, 895 F.2d 421, 423 (7th Cir.1990); cf. Aro Corp. v. Allied Witan Co., 531 F.2d 1368, 1371 (6th Cir.) ("Even in those instances in which the cour......
-
International College of Surgeons v. City of Chicago, Ill.
...consider the issue sua sponte when it appears from the record that jurisdiction is lacking."); United Steelworkers of America v. Libby, McNeill & Libby, Inc., 895 F.2d 421, 423 (7th Cir.1990) ("Every federal appellate court has a special obligation to satisfy itself of the jurisdiction of t......
-
Gilmartin v. Abastillas, 16078
...571 F.2d 1299, 1303 (4th Cir.1978), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 1047, 99 S.Ct. 722, 58 L.Ed.2d 706 (1978); United Steelworkers v. Libby, McNeill & Libby, Inc., 895 F.2d 421, 423 (7th Cir.1990); Backers v. Bit-She, 549 F.Supp. 388, 389 (N.D.Cal.1982); Petition of Telesystems Corp., 148 Vt. 411, 4......
-
Morris v. City of Hobart
...take any specific form; it requires only that the court approve such a request for dismissal. See United Steelworkers v. Libby, McNeill & Libby, Inc., 895 F.2d 421, 422 n. 1 (7th Cir.1990) (finding that dismissal was pursuant to Rule 41(a)(2) because of the "circumstances surrounding the di......