Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01282/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01282-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 820
Nature of Suit: Copyright
Cause of Action: 17:501 Copyright Infringement

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WARNER BROS. RECORDS, INC., a )

Delaware corporation; ARISTA )

RECORDS LLC, a Delaware limited ) 2:05-cv-1282-GEB-KJM

liability company; CAPITOL )

RECORDS, INC., a Delaware ) ORDER DISMISSING ACTION

corporation; and SONY BMG MUSIC )

ENTERTAINMENT, a Delaware )

corporation, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. )

)

KEN PERRY, )

)

Defendant. )

)

The “[Proposed] Judgment and Permanent Injunction Based on

Stipulation” filed February 13, 2006, reflects the settlement of this

action (“Settlement”). “The settlement is just another contract to be

enforced in the usual way, that is, by a fresh suit[,]” unless the

federal court exercises jurisdiction over it as is requested in the

Settlement. Jessup v. Luther, 277 F.3d 926, 929 (7th Cir. 2002). The

parties state in the Settlement that “[t]he Court shall maintain

continuing jurisdiction over this action for the purpose of enforcing

this final Judgment and Permanent Injunction.” (Settlement ¶ 9.) “Of

course, the mere fact that the parties agree that the [federal] court

Case 2:05-cv-01282-GEB -KJM Document 31 Filed 05/04/06 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

should exercise . . . jurisdiction [over their Settlement Agreement]

is not binding on the court.” Arata v. Nu Skin Int’l, Inc., 96 F.3d

1265, 1269 (9th Cir. 1996). 

While it is recognized that federal jurisdiction can be

exercised over certain settlements, exercising jurisdiction is not

automatic. Rather, a settlement must be analyzed for determination

whether the exercise of jurisdiction over it is “essential to the

conduct of federal-court business.” Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins.

Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 382 (1994). Certain matters in the

Settlement dissuade me from exercising ancillary jurisdiction over the

Stipulation. Specifically, paragraph four includes an injunction

enjoining Defendant “from . . . indirectly infringing Plaintiffs’

rights under federal or state law in any sound recording, whether now

in existence or later created . . . .” The term “indirectly” is not

defined in the Settlement, and it is questionable whether a federal

injunction should now issue enjoining Defendant from violating yet to

be enacted federal or state law. It is also unclear what statements

paragraph eight precludes Defendant from making.

Since jurisdiction will not be exercised over the

Settlement, this action is dismissed. See Oswalt v. Scripto, Inc.,

616 F.2d 191, 194 (5th Cir. 1980) (revealing that when a settlement is

tantamount to a stipulated dismissal, a dismissal order should issue). 

The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this action.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 4, 2006

/s/ Garland E. Burrell, Jr.

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:05-cv-01282-GEB -KJM Document 31 Filed 05/04/06 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

Case 2:05-cv-01282-GEB -KJM Document 31 Filed 05/04/06 Page 3 of 3