Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-01828/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-01828-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Personal Injury

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Joshua Ferrill,

Plaintiff,

vs.

Union Pacific Railroad Company,

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CIV 08-1828-PHX-MHM 

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

TO THE HONORABLE MARY H. MURGUIA, U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE:

The presiding District Judge has referred the pending Unopposed Motion to Enforce

Settlement to the undersigned who conducted a settlement conference which resulted in a

settlement. Because neither 28 U.S.C. § 636 nor Rule 72 of the Rules of Civil Procedure

("Magistrate Judges: Pretrial Order") provides for a Magistrate Judge to issue an order

determining the matter, the undersigned will issue this Report and Recommendation to the

presiding District Judge.

After the parties agreed to settle this case, the essential terms of the settlement were

placed on the record during a telephonic hearing before the settlement judge on August 9, 2010,

and the docket now includes a written settlement agreement bearing the signature of the

Plaintiff. Doc. 64-2 at p. 5. The parties submitted a stipulation for dismissal with prejudice and

a proposed form of order on September 15, 2010, which was entered on September 22, 2010,

and this cause was terminated (Doc. 63).

Case 2:08-cv-01828-MHM Document 66 Filed 02/22/11 Page 1 of 4
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 -

 Meanwhile as described in Plaintiff's Motion, pursuant to the terms of the parties' written

settlement agreement, the Defendant issued a check naming Plaintiff and his counsel as payees.

Plaintiff's counsel forwarded this check to Plaintiff for his signature but it was never returned.

Plaintiff's Motion avows that repeated efforts to contact Plaintiff have been unsuccessful. (The

undersigned, in his capacity as the settlement judge, also recently tried to contact Plaintiff via

telephone and email but to no avail.) In light of this impasse final resolution of the case from

the parties' perspective is stalled. Plaintiff's Motion proposes that the Court order the Defendant

to reissue a check in the name of Plaintiff's counsel -only- who will then disburse the funds.

Before considering this proposal, the Court must consider whether it has the jurisdiction to take

any further action in this dismissed case.

This case was dismissed with prejudice pursuant to the entry of an Order for Dismissal

in the form proposed by the parties. That Order includes no language preserving the Court's

jurisdiction. Plaintiff's Motion suggests that the Court maintained jurisdiction by incorporating

terms of the settlement into its dismissal. The Order for Dismissal does not employ any

language incorporating the terms of the settlement. There is no language in the Order of

Dismissal which can reasonably be construed as incorporating any terms; the Order recites the

fact of the settlement, the release, payment and the stipulation for dismissal. The Court's

consideration of this issue is guided by the Supreme Court's ruling in Kokkonen v. Guardian

Life Ins. Co of America, 511 U.S. 375, 114 S.Ct. 1673 (1994). Kokkonen set forth in clear terms

what is required for a federal court to preserve its jurisdiction to address settlement issues post

entry of dismissal: there must be a separate provision of the order of dismissal explicitly

preserving the court's jurisdiction or the court must incorporate the terms of the settlement in

its order of dismissal. "The judge's mere awareness and approval of the terms of the settlement

agreement do not suffice to make them part of his order." Id. at 381, 114 S.Ct. at 1677.

Plaintiff's Motion cites a minute entry of the undersigned Magistrate Judge as

constituting the incorporation of the settlement into the Order of Dismissal. This argument fails

because the Magistrate Judge served as a mediator, and only the presiding judge would have the

Case 2:08-cv-01828-MHM Document 66 Filed 02/22/11 Page 2 of 4
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 -

power to delineate the parameters of the Order of Dismissal. Moreover, this argument is further

foreclosed by the fact that a magistrate judge has no power to take dispositive action, such as

entering a dismissal, absent the consent of the parties and with the approval of the assigned

district judge. Neither factor is present here. Finally, Plaintiff's Motion tests the bounds of

logic by arguing that a minute entry which prescribed the schedule for final execution of the

settlement somehow, silently, incorporated the terms of the settlement within its terms. Parties

know how to craft language to preserve the Court's jurisdiction and since Kokkonen they have

known that such language is required for a court to retain jurisdiction in a dismissed case. The

language the parties submitted for the Court's signature did not preserve any jurisdiction over

this dismissed and closed matter. The Court has no power to act and accordingly,

IT IS RECOMMENDED that the Plaintiff's Motion be DENIED (Doc. 64).

This recommendation is not an order that is immediately appealable to the Ninth Circuit

Court of Appeals. Any notice of appeal pursuant to Rule 4(a)(1), Federal Rules of Appellate

Procedure, should not be filed until entry of the district court’s judgment. The parties shall have

fourteen days from the date of service of a copy of this recommendation within which to file

specific written objections with the Court. See, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Rules 72, 6(a), 6(b),

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Thereafter, the parties have fourteen days within which to

file a response to the objections. Failure to timely file objections to the Magistrate Judge's

Report and Recommendation may result in the acceptance of the Report and Recommendation

by the district court without further review. See United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114,

1121 (9th Cir. 2003). Failure to timely file objections to any factual determinations of the

Magistrate Judge will be considered a waiver of a party’s right to appellate review of the

findings of fact in an order or judgment entered pursuant to the Magistrate Judge’s

recommendation. See Rule 72, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Case 2:08-cv-01828-MHM Document 66 Filed 02/22/11 Page 3 of 4
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 - 4 -

IT IS ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court mail a copy of this Order to Mr. Ferrill at

the address set forth in Plaintiff's Counsel's Certificate of Service at Docket No. 64-4.

DATED this 22nd day of February, 2011.

Case 2:08-cv-01828-MHM Document 66 Filed 02/22/11 Page 4 of 4