Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_18-cv-03565/USCOURTS-azd-2_18-cv-03565-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 110
Nature of Suit: Insurance
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Breach of 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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Before the Court is Defendant’s Motion to Enforce Settlement. (Doc. 45) For the 

following reasons, the Court will deny the motion.

This case arises from a dispute regarding Hartford Life and Accident Insurance 

Company (“Defendant”) paying William J. O’Hayer (“Plaintiff”) long-term disability 

benefits after Plaintiff was injured on the job. (Doc. 1-6) The parties filed a notice of 

settlement on August 29, 2019. (Doc. 39) The Court ordered the case to be dismissed with 

prejudice on September 30, 2019 unless a stipulation to dismiss or request for reinstatement 

was filed prior to that date. (Doc. 40) The parties did not file a stipulation to dismiss or 

request for reinstatement, and the Clerk’s Office dismissed the case with prejudice. (Doc. 

41) On January 16, 2020, Defendant filed the Motion to Enforce Settlement, asserting that 

the parties reached a settlement agreement on August 23, 2019 but Plaintiff refuses to abide 

by the terms of the agreement. (Doc. 45 at 2) Citing In re City Equities Anaheim, Ltd., 22 

F.3d 954 (9th Cir. 1994), Defendant asserts that this Court has jurisdiction to enforce the 

William J. O’Hayer, 

 

Plaintiff, 

 

vs. 

Hartford Life and Accident Insurance

Company, 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-18-03565-PHX-SPL

ORDER

Case 2:18-cv-03565-SPL Document 48 Filed 03/26/20 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

settlement agreement. (Doc. 45 at 4) The Court disagrees.

The Court finds that In re City Equities Anaheim, Ltd. is distinguishable because in 

that case the underlying bankruptcy was still ongoing when the plaintiff motioned for the 

enforcement of an ancillary settlement agreement. Id. at 956-57. In addition, subsequent to 

the In re City Equities Anaheim, Ltd. decision, the United States Supreme Court held that 

“enforcement of [a] settlement agreement is for state courts, unless there is some 

independent basis for federal jurisdiction.” Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 

U.S. 375, 382 (1994). This is because enforcement of a settlement agreement “‘is more 

than just a continuation or renewal of the dismissed suit.’” Alvarado v. Table Mountain 

Rancheria, 509 F.3d 1008, 1017 (9th Cir. 2007) (quoting Kokkonen, 511 U.S. at 378). As 

an exception to this rule, federal courts have jurisdiction to enforce a settlement agreement 

in a dismissed case when the dismissal order incorporated the settlement terms, or the court

expressly retained jurisdiction over the settlement agreement. Alvarado, 508 F.3d at 1017.

Under those circumstances, a breach of the agreement is a violation of the court’s order, 

and the court has jurisdiction to enforce its order. Kokkonen, 511 U.S. at 381. 

Here, the Court’s Order dismissing the case did not incorporate the terms of the 

settlement agreement and did not expressly retain jurisdiction. (Doc. 40) Therefore, the 

Court does not have jurisdiction to hear Defendant’s motion. Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Enforce Settlement (Doc. 45) is 

denied. 

Dated this 26th day of March, 2020.

Honorable Steven P. Logan

United States District Judge

Case 2:18-cv-03565-SPL Document 48 Filed 03/26/20 Page 2 of 2