Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Ice Bowl, L.L.C. v. Weigel Broadcasting Co.
Citations: 83 F. Supp. 2d 1005; 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2096; 2000 WL 220447Docket: No. Civ.A. 98-C-0348
Court: District Court, E.D. Wisconsin; February 22, 2000; Federal District Court
The court issued an order on February 23, 2000, denying Ice Bowl L.L.C.'s motions to enforce a settlement agreement and to reopen a previously dismissed case against Weigel Broadcasting Co. The original case, a commercial dispute, was dismissed with prejudice on March 31, 1999, based on a stipulation by both parties. The court found it lacked jurisdiction to enforce the settlement agreement because Ice Bowl could not establish grounds for jurisdiction independent of the dismissed action, as required by Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. Additionally, the court noted that the terms of the settlement were not explicitly incorporated into the dismissal order, meaning the agreement was not part of the court's judgment. Therefore, violations of the settlement's terms could not activate the court's ancillary jurisdiction, as established in Lucille v. City of Chicago and Neuberg v. Michael Reese Hosp. Found. Furthermore, the order dismissing the case with prejudice barred Ice Bowl from reopening the case under the principle of res judicata. As a result, both motions by Ice Bowl were denied.