# MERRILL v. DUNLAP > District Court, D. Maine · June 24, 2021 URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10211009 ## Case - **Court:** District Court, D. Maine - **Decided:** June 24, 2021 - **Opinion:** 100trialcourt - **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library ## Citator (automated) - No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases. - Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10211009 ## Opinion text UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MAINE LYNN MERRILL, et al., Plaintiffs v. NO. 1:20-cv-00248-JAW SHENNA BELLOWS, et al., Defendants. CONSENT ORDER REGARDING SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT This matter comes before the Court upon the Parties’ Joint Stipulation of Dismissal with Prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) (see ECF 74-2), conditioned on the Court’s retention of jurisdiction to resolve any motions brought to enforce or modify the terms of the parties’ fully executed Settlement Agreement and Release (hereafter “Settlement Agreement,” attached hereto). See Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of America, 511 U.S. 375, 114 S. Ct. 1673, 128 L. Ed. 2d 391, 29 Fed. R. Serv. 3d 1 (1994). The parties have agreed that the Joint Stipulation of Dismissal with Prejudice is neither immediately effective nor self-executing, and it will take effect only upon the entry of an order by the Court retaining jurisdiction to enforce the Settlement Agreement. The Parties and their counsel have agreed as set forth below as evidence by signatures of counsel also appearing below. Good cause has been shown for the entry of this Order. IT IS THEREFORE on this 24th day of June, 2021, Ordered as follows: 1. The Court incorporates the terms of the Settlement Agreement herein and makes it an Order of the Court. 2. The Court retains ancillary jurisdiction to enforce the Settlement Agreement and resolve any disputes regarding compliance that may occur through November 30, 2024. See Settlement Agreement ¶¶ 3(c), (d) 3. The Court finds that the scope of the court's continuing jurisdiction is limited by reasonable time limits for the parties to invoke the court's review of issues arising from the Settlement Agreement. 4. Any dispute regarding compliance with the Settlement Agreement and this Order shall be brought to and resolved by this Court. The Court has discretion to award any legal or equitable relief it deems appropriate in the event of non- compliance with the Settlement Agreement. 5. Subject to the foregoing, and except as expressly set forth above, all claims and defenses in the action shall be and hereby are released with prejudice. 6. Except as otherwise agreed to by the Parties, each party to bear its own fees and costs incurred to date in this action. 2 For Plaintiffs: For Defendants: Dated: June 23, 2021 Dated: June 23, 2021 /s/ Kristin L. Aiello /s/ Valerie A. Wright Kristin L. Aiello Valerie A. Wright DISABILITY RIGHTS MAINE Assistant Attorney General 160 Capitol Street, Suite 4 6 State House Station Augusta, Maine 04330 Augusta, ME 04333-0006 (207) 626-2774 (207) 626-8568 kaiello@drme.org Valerie.A.Wright@maine.gov Counsel for State Defendants /s/ Peter M. Rice Peter M. Rice DISABILITY RIGHTS MAINE 160 Capitol Street, Suite 4 Augusta, Maine 04330 (207) 626-2774 pmrice@drme.org /s/ Eve Hill Eve Hill BROWN GOLDSTEIN & LEVY 120 E. Baltimore Street, Suite 2500 Baltimore, MD 21202 (410) 962-1030 ext. 1311 EHill@BROWNGOLD.COM Counsel for Plaintiffs SO ORDERED. Dated this 24th day of June, 2021 /s/ John A. Woodcock, Jr. JOHN A. WOODCOCK, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 3 --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10211009. Public record. Not legal advice.