Cummings v. Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority et al, No. 1:2014cv01729 - Document 59 (N.D. Ohio 2016)
Court Description: Opinion & Order signed by Judge James S. Gwin on 8/17/16 denying plaintiff's motion to review the settlement agreement for the reasons set forth in this order. (Related Doc. 55 ) (D,MA)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Cummings v. Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority et al Doc. 59 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO ------------------------------------------------------: NOEL A. CUMMINGS, : : Plaintiff, : : v. : : GREATER CLEVELAND REGIONAL : TRANSIT AUTHROITY, et al., : : Defendants, : : ------------------------------------------------------- CASE NO.: 1:14-CV-01729 OPINION AND ORDER [Resolving Doc. 55] JAMES S. GWIN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE: On February 4, 2015, Plaintiff Noel A. Cummings and Defendant Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority settled their employment dispute.1 This Court retained jurisdiction over any subsequent disputes concerning the settlement’s memorialization.2 On August 5, 2016, Plaintiff Cummings filed a motion to review the settlement agreement, arguing that its terms conflict with Ohio Revised Code § 145.01 (R)(2)(h).3 For the reasons below, this Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion for two reasons. First, Plaintiff seeks an advisory opinion on the meaning of Ohio RC § 145.01 (R)(2)(h). Federal courts are not permitted to issue such opinions as “the exercise of judicial power under Art. III of the Constitution depends on the existence of a case or controversy.” 4 Without an actual dispute, no such case or controversy exists. 1 Doc. 43. Id. 3 Doc. 55. 4 Preiser v. Newkirk, 422 U.S. 395, 401 (1975). 2 -1- Dockets.Justia.com Case No. 1:14-CV-01729 Gwin, J. Second, this Court retained jurisdiction only over conflicts arising from the agreement’s memorialization, not its substantive validity. This Court’s retained jurisdiction terminated when the agreement was signed in February 2015. Further, Plaintiff Cummings has requested that the Ohio Public Employees Retirement System (“OPERS”) review the settlement’s substantive propriety.5 OPERS is not a party this case and the Court has no authority to order a non-party to do anything. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: August 17, 2016 5 s/ James S. Gwin JAMES S. GWIN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Doc. 58. -2-
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
