Amantiad v. Odum5/20/1999
granted the motion. See id. at 285-86, 869 P.2d at 1348-49.
Upon review, the ICA reversed the circuit court, stating that
" dismissal of a lawsuit with prejudice is generally regarded as an adjudication on the merits of all issues that were raised or could have been raised in the pleadings, thus barring, on res judicata grounds, any subsequent litigation involving the same claims, Land v. Highway Constr. Co., 64 Haw. 545, 551, 645 P.2d 295, 299, recon. denied, 64 Haw. 688 (1982), and terminating the trial court's jurisdiction over the lawsuit. Hinsdale v. Farmers Nat'l Bank & Trust Co., 823 F.2d 993, 995 (6th Cir. 1987); McCall-Bey v. Franzen, 777 F.2d 1178, 1185 (7th Cir. 1985). "When an action is dismissed with prejudice as part of a settlement agreement which is subsequently breached, the trial court thereafter has no jurisdiction to enforce the settlement agreement unless a party to the agreement takes one of two courses of action. "First, an independent action may be brought for specific performance of the settlement agreement. Hinsdale, 823 F.2d at 996; Musifilm, B.V. v. Spector, 568 F.Supp. 578, 581 (S.D.N.Y. 1983); Brigando v. Republic Steel Corp., 180 Ill.App.3d 1016, 1021-22, 536 N.E.2d 778, 782, n.1, cert. denied, 127 Ill.2d 612, 136 Ill.Dec. 581, 545 N.E.2d 105 (1989). "Second, a motion to vacate the dismissal order and reopen the original proceedings may be filed. Unless the vacatur is first granted, however, no jurisdiction would exist in the court to enter any remedial orders in the case." Hinsdale, 823 F.2d at 996; McCall-Bey, 777 F.2d at 1186; Harman v. Pauley, 678 F.2d 479, 481 (4th Cir. 1982); Kelly v. Greer, 334 F.2d 434, 436-37 (3d Cir. 1964). Id. at 289-91, 869 P.2d at 1349-50 (emphasis added); accord Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of America, 511 U.S. 375, 377, 381 (1994) (holding that a district court lacked jurisdiction and did not have "inherent authority" to enforce settlement where parties stipulated to dismiss the matter with prejudice).
We agree with and hereby adopt the ICA's reasoning.
Because the parties in the instant case entered into a stipulation to dismiss with prejudice as to all parties and claims, which was filed on July 1, 1996, but no party either (1) moved to vacate the dismissal or (2) instituted a separate action for specific performance of the settlement, the circuit court lacked jurisdiction to enforce the oral settlement entered on the record. Consequently, the circuit court's August 26, 1997 order enforcing settlement is void. Therefore, the circuit court abused its discretion in denying Amantiad's September 16, 1997 HRCP Rule 60(b) motion to vacate the order granting OTS's motion to enforce settlement.
On this basis alone, we reverse (1) the circuit court's December 16, 1997 order denying Amantiad's motion to vacate and (2) the circuit court's August 26, 1997 order enforcing settlement -- i.e., forcing Amantiad to sign the Amended Release Agreement or, in the alternative, invalidating the May 24, 1996 Agreement. However, inasmuch as Amantiad also properly raised the issue of the circuit court's subject matter jurisdiction over a "wash" of future workers' compensation benefits and the circuit apparently concluded that it retained said jurisdiction, we are compelled to address this issue.
B. The Director of Labor Retains Original Jurisdiction over all Controversies and Disputes arising under HRS Chapter 386.
On May 2, 1996, through aid of counsel, Amantiad agreed, on the record before the circuit court, to "wash" his future workers' compensation benefits in return for $25,000, in a global settlement with Defendant Odum and OTS. Relying upon that promise, Odum paid $25,00
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Hawaii Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|