Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-00701/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-00701-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Other Contract

---

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 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

EUREKA INVENTIONS, LLC, et al., 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

BESTWAY (USA), INC., et al., 

Defendants. 

Case No. 15-cv-00701-JSW 

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AND 

VACATING BRIEFING SCHEDULE 

AND HEARING PENDING FURTHER 

ORDER OF THE COURT; 

RESERVING RIGHT TO REFER 

MOTION 

Re: Dkt. No. 37 

 On March 18, 2020, Pietro Pasquale Antonio Sgromo (“Mr. Sgromo”) filed a motion to 

enforce a settlement agreement entered in this case following a settlement conference before 

Magistrate Judge Donna M. Ryu. On October 28, 2015, the parties stipulated to dismiss this case. 

On November 9, 2015, the Court approved that stipulation. The Order approving the stipulation 

and dismissing the case does not state that the Court would retain jurisdiction to enforce the 

settlement agreement. Although the parties’ stipulation referred to the Settlement Agreement, 

pursuant to which they apparently agreed the Court would retain jurisdiction, the parties did not 

submit a copy of the Settlement Agreement as an exhibit to the stipulation and did not specifically 

refer to its terms. (See Dkt. Nos. 35, 36.) 

“Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction,” and “[i]t is to be presumed that a cause 

lies outside this limited jurisdiction” unless otherwise shown. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. 

of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). In Kokkonen, the Supreme Court held that “[i]f parties wish to 

provide for the court’s enforcement of a dismissal-producing settlement agreement, they can seek 

to do so,” by stating in the dismissal that the court would retain jurisdiction or by incorporating the 

terms of the settlement agreement in the order. Id. (emphasis added/in original). “Absent such 

Case 4:15-cv-00701-JSW Document 42 Filed 03/23/20 Page 1 of 2
2 

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 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

action, however, enforcement of the settlement agreement is for state courts, unless there is some 

independent basis for federal jurisdiction.” Id. at 381-82 (emphasis added). 

Although the stipulation refers to the settlement, that alone is not sufficient to incorporate 

the terms of the parties’ agreement into the dismissal. See, e.g., Kokkonen, 511 U.S. at 381 (“The 

judge’s mere awareness and approval of the terms of the settlement agreement do not suffice to 

make them part of his order.”); O’Connor v. Colvin, 70 F.3d 530, 532 (9th Cir. 1995) (dismissal 

order stating it was “based on” settlement not sufficient to confer jurisdiction, even where 

settlement was filed with the court); Situ v. Wong, No. 13-cv-05102 JD (NJV), 2015 WL 433477, 

at *2 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 29, 2015). 

Although the parties may have intended for the Court to retain jurisdiction, their agreement 

“is not binding on the [C]ourt.” Arata v. NuSkin Int’l., Inc., 96 F.3d 1265, 1269 (9th Cir. 1996) 

(citing cases); see also Situ, 2015 WL 433477, at *2. As noted in Kokkonen, “compliance with the 

terms of the settlement contract (or the court’s ‘retention of jurisdiction’ over the settlement 

contract) may, in the court’s discretion, be one of the terms set forth in the order.” 511 U.S. at 381 

(emphasis added). By its terms, the Court did not retain jurisdiction over this matter in the 

dismissal, and the parties did not incorporate the terms of the Settlement Agreement into the 

dismissal. 

Accordingly, Mr. Sgromo is HEREBY ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE why the Court has 

jurisdiction to consider his motion. Mr. Sgromo’s response to this Order to Show Cause shall be 

due by April 6, 2020. Any interested party may file a response to Mr. Sgromo’s jurisdictional 

argument by April 20, 2020, and Mr. Sgromo may file a reply by April 27, 2020. The Court will 

resolve that issue on the papers. The Court VACATES the briefing schedule and the hearing on 

the motion to enforce. If it has jurisdiction, the Court reserves the right to refer the motion to 

Magistrate Judge Ryu for a report and recommendation. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: March 23, 2020 

______________________________________ 

JEFFREY S. WHITE 

United States District Judge 

Case 4:15-cv-00701-JSW Document 42 Filed 03/23/20 Page 2 of 2