The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals held that the language traditionally used in stipulations of dismissal under Rule 41a(1)(A)(ii) concerning the court reserving jurisdiction to enforce a settlement agreement does not confer jurisdiction on the court to do so.
In Anago Franchising, Inc.v. Shaz, LLC 677 F.3d 1272 (11th Cir. 2012) the District Court found that it had never dismissed the case and retained jurisdiction to decide the motion to compel compliance with the settlement agreement. The Court of Appeals held that a stipulation in accord with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41a(1)(A)(ii) is self-executing and dismisses the case. Therefore the District Court did not retain jurisdiction to enforce the settlement agreement even though the parties had provided in their stipulation that the court retained jurisdiction. The court said:
“It is undoubtedly true that all parties must consent to the retention of jurisdiction over the enforcement of a settlement agreement if the case is dismissed by stipulation of all parties, but that agreement alone is not sufficient. See Kokkonen, 511 U.S. @381, 114 S.Ct.@ 677. The district court must also issue an order specifically retaining jurisdiction in accordance with Kokkonen because ancillary jurisdiction allows a district court to effectuate its orders, not to enforce sanctions. (p. 1280)