and decisions that such a party believed adversely affected his position. Because the premise for seeking removal is presumably a product of a lack of understanding of the process required by the Decree, it is best characterized as baseless. Accordingly, the request for removal will be denied. B. Plaintiffs’ Right to a Jury Trial and the Special Master Process As an initial matter, Paragraph 11(2) of the Stage II Consent Decree provides in relevant part that: This Decree settles in full all class-claims for monetary relief of whatever kind for members of the plaintiff class against Local 542 ... which have been, are, or could have been raised in this litigation. This Decree is not intended, however, to affect, limit or in any way resolve any , 79 F.R.D. 98, 105-06 (E.D.Pa. 1978) (<HOLDING>). The court notes that Local 542 does not
holding that a motion to terminate a consent decree was moot because the challenged provisions of the decree had expired holding that where the action was filed as a class action and a consent decree was entered into entry of the consent decree was sufficient certification of the action as a class action under rule 23 holding that consent decree could not preclude plaintiffs from bringing claims that could not have been brought at time consent decree was filed and to which they were legally and procedurally entitled holding that a motion to terminate a consent decree was moot because there was no  consent decree left to be terminated holding a motion to revise an enrolled divorce decree because of a discrepancy between the separation agreement and the decree filed more than 5 years after entry of the enrolled decree was properly denied