Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_02-cv-05783/USCOURTS-caed-1_02-cv-05783-7/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

THOMAS GAETANO LUPARELLO,

Plaintiff,

v.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et. al.,

Defendants.

 /

CV F 02 5783 AWI SMS P 

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO ENFORCE

SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND

AUGMENT STATUTORY ATTORNEY FEES 

(Doc. 103) 

On March 6, 2006, the parties entered into a settlement agreement granting the Plaintiff

the injunctive relief sought on his allegation that his rights under the Religious Land Use and

Institutionalized Persons Act (“RLUIPA”) were violated. A stipulation and dismissal was

submitted by the parties and an Order granting the dismissal was issued on March 27, 2006. 

Judgment was entered on May 18, 2006. 

On July 24, 2006, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Enforcement the Settlement Agreement and

for Augmentation of Plaintiff’s statutory attorney fees. Defendants filed an Opposition on

August 14, 2006. 

In Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. Of America, 511 U.S. 375, 114 S.Ct. 1673 (1994),

the U.S. Supreme Court considered the jurisdiction of federal courts to enforce settlement

agreements. The Court held that once parties to a lawsuit have settled and the district court has

dismissed the case, the district court does not have ancillary jurisdiction to enforce the partie’s

settlement agreement. Id. at 381. Ancillary jurisdiction to enforce a settlement agreement may

Case 1:02-cv-05783-AWI -SMS Document 107 Filed 09/18/06 Page 1 of 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

2

arise if the “parties’ obligation to comply with the terms of the settlement agreement had been

made part of the order of dismissal – either by [a] separate provision [in the order “retaining

jurisdiction”] or by incorporating the terms of the settlement agreement in the order.” Kokkonen,

511 U.S. at 381; Hagestad v. Tragesser, 49 F.3d 1430, 1433 (9 Cir. 1995). Such specific th

language confers the requisite jurisdiction because a breach of the agreement thereby violates the

order. Id. at 381. Absent such specific language or an independent basis for jurisdiction, the

enforcement of a settlement agreement is for the state courts. Id. at 382.

In this case, the Order of dismissal did not explicitly retain jurisdiction over the

settlement agreement nor did the order incorporate the terms of the agreement.

Accordingly, the Court HEREBY ORDERS: 

1. The Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement and for Augmentation of

Attorney’s Fees is DENIED for lack of jurisdiction. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 16, 2006 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:02-cv-05783-AWI -SMS Document 107 Filed 09/18/06 Page 2 of 2