United States District Court, D. Maine
ALAN J. PERRY, et al., Plaintiffs
PETER TINKHAM, et al., Defendants PETER TINKHAM, et al., Plaintiffs
LAURA PERRY, et al., Defendants
ORDER ON PLAINTIFFS' APPLICATION FOR JUDGMENT ON
ORDER OF SANCTIONS
C. NIVISON, U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE
October 24, 2018, the Court issued its Order on
Plaintiff's Motion for Court to Deem Settlement Documents
Signed and for Sanctions. (Order, ECF No. 280.) In the Order,
the Court granted the relief requested by Plaintiffs; the
Court deemed that Defendants signed the Universal Settlement
Agreement and Release of All Claims, as well as a deed
conveying real property. The Court also imposed a monetary
sanction on Defendants for their repeated refusal to comply
with orders of the Court.
now petition the Court to issue a judgment on the order of
sanctions, and request a related writ of execution.
(Application for Judgment in a Civil Action, Writ of
Execution and Writ of Assistance, ECF No. 281.) Plaintiffs
report that Defendant has not paid the ordered sanction.
After review of Plaintiffs' filings, the Court denies
without prejudice Plaintiffs' application for a money
judgment on the order of sanctions.
monetary sanction is not a money judgment that can presently
be enforced by a writ of execution. Cleveland Hair
Clinic, Inc. v. Puig, 106 F.3d 165, 166 (7th Cir. 1997)
(“Use of the contempt power is an appropriate way to
enforce a sanction for misconduct, which is not an ordinary
money judgment.”); Desjardins v. Desjardins,
2005 ME 77, ¶ 9, 876 A.2d 26, 29 (order of contempt is
not the same thing as a money judgment). At this stage of the
proceedings, therefore, Plaintiffs are not entitled to the
entry of a money judgment on the Court's sanction order.
on the foregoing analysis, the Court denies without prejudice
Plaintiffs' application for judgment on the monetary
 After Defendants informed the Court
that the parties settled this matter, the Court ordered the
parties to file a stipulation of dismissal within 30 days.
(ECF No. 184.) A stipulation of dismissal was not filed;
rather, the parties filed various motions related to the
settlement, which motions included Plaintiffs' motion to
enforce the settlement (ECF No. 241) and Plaintiffs'
motion to deem the settlement documents signed. (ECF No.
268.) Because the Court granted the motion to enforce the
settlement (Decision and Order on Plaintiffs' Motion to
Enforce Settlement, ECF No. 264), because the Court
considered the settlement complete upon granting the motion
to deem the settlement documents signed, and because the
matter was to be dismissed as the result of the parties'
settlement, the Court dismissed with prejudice the claims
asserted in the matter. (Order at 8, ECF No. 280.) Although
the Court dismissed the matter, in its Decision and Order on
Plaintiff's Motion to Enforce Settlement and for
Sanctions, and Defendants' Motion for Judicial Aid in
Settlement, the Court specifically “retain[ed]
jurisdiction to enforce the terms of [its] Decision and Order
and the terms of the parties' settlement
agreement.” (ECF No. 264.)
 The Court notes that Plaintiffs did
not include a certificate of service with their filing. In
the event Defendants were entitled to but did not receive
notice of Plaintiffs' application for judgment, given
that the Court is denying Plaintiffs' application,
Defendants are not prejudiced by any lack of notice of
 Plaintiffs also seek a writ of
assistance regarding the real property to be transferred in
accordance with the parties' settlement agreement
enforced by the Court. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 70(d)
provides: “On application by a party who obtains a
judgment or order for possession, the clerk must issue a writ
of execution or assistance.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 70(d). In the
prior Order, the Court, on Plaintiffs' motion, deemed
signed by Defendants a deed transferring the real property.
Based on Plaintiffs' relevant filing, entitled
“Writ of Assistance and Abstract of Judgment”
(ECF No. 282-1), Plaintiffs appear to request an abstract of
the Court's order. The preparation of an abstract is a
clerical, not a judicial, function. United States v.
Gutierrez-Ramirez, 405 F.3d 352, 357 (5th Cir. 2005)
(commenting on the preparation of abstract of judgment in
criminal case) (cited ...