Settlement is GRANTED. However, the Court wishes to clarify the Magistrate’s analysis of the issue of subject matter jurisdiction. The Magistrate states in his report and recommendation that “in this Circuit a district court has jurisdiction to enforce settlement agreements, on motion by counsel especially when the non-moving party refuses to comply with the agreement before the case has been dismissed.” Mag. Report and Recommendation at 5, Le Bon Pain, Inc. v. Guyon and Co., Inc., No. 89-0616 (July 26, 1989). The Magistrate notes the existence of an intracircuit conflict over the issue of whether a district court retains jurisdiction to enforce settlement agreements before a case has been dismissed. Compare Cia Anon Venezolana De Navigacion v. Harris, 374 F.2d 33 (5th Cir.1967) (<HOLDING>) with Londono v. City of Gainesville, 768 F.2d
holding that a district court has the inherent power to summarily enforce settlement agreements  in a pending case recognizing inherent power of courts of appeals recognizing that court has inherent power to control the judicial business before it recognizing use of ancillary jurisdiction in subsequent proceedings for the exercise of the courts inherent power to enforce its judgments recognizing the inherent power of the courts to issue warrants