United States District Court, S.D. Indiana, Indianapolis Division
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON PLAINTIFF'S SECOND
MOTION TO REOPEN CASE
MATTHEW P. BROOKMAN, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Sandra Kinsella, has filed a motion to reopen this case
pursuant to the parties' Settlement Agreement.
(Docket No. 87). On May 22, 2019, the Honorable Jane
Magnus-Stinson referred this matter to the undersigned
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) to conduct any
necessary hearings and issue a report and recommendation
regarding the proper disposition of the second motion to
reopen the case. (Docket No. 88). Plaintiff's
request is opposed and fully briefed. (Docket No.
90; Docket No. 91). The undersigned having reviewed
the parties' filings and, being duly advised, hereby
recommends that Plaintiff's Second Motion to Reopen
the Case (Docket No. 87) be
August 9, 2016, Dr. Kinsella filed a lawsuit against
Defendant, Indiana University Health Care Associates, Inc.
(d/b/a Indiana University Health Physicians)
(“IUHP”), in state court, which was removed to
this court on August 24, 2016. (Docket No. 1). On
December 22, 2016, Dr. Kinsella filed her Second Amended
Complaint, alleging gender discrimination, retaliation, and
wrongful termination. (Docket No. 26). On November
10, 2017, Dr. Kinsella filed her Statement of Claims,
identifying only sex harassment and discrimination as her
remaining claims against IUHP, and omitting any reference to
her retaliation or wrongful termination claims. (Docket
thereafter, on November 30, 2017, the parties entered into a
Settlement Agreement. (Docket No. 87). In pertinent
part, the Settlement Agreement provided:
Dr. Kinsella may ask the Court to re-open the Action to allow
the Action to proceed if Drs. Allison, Hardacher, Johnson,
Kritzmire or Latham do not receive a contract renewal during
the relevant period,  or Dr. Kinsella receives evidence of what
she believes to be unlawful gender discrimination against
female IUHP anesthesiologists by Dr. Presson or the IUHP
Anesthesiology Division leaders.
(Docket No. 87 at ECF p. 1).
Agreement also provided:
Any such request by Dr. Kinsella to reopen the Action shall
not reference any lack of contract renewal to one of the
relevant physicians, but shall merely reference “the
parties' agreement following the Court's settlement
conference on November 29, 2017” as the basis for the
request to re-open the Action.
(Docket No. 87 at ECF p. 1).
December 1, 2017, the court acknowledged that a resolution
had been reached and granted the parties leave to file a
motion for administrative closure. (Docket No. 66).
The parties filed a joint request to administratively close
the matter (Docket No. 67), which was granted.
(Docket No. 68).
Kinsella seeks to employ the above-listed provisions of the
Settlement Agreement to reopen this matter. IUHP objects and
argues that Dr. Kinsella has not satisfied the
Agreement's requirements to reopen.