Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_00-cv-01544/USCOURTS-cand-3_00-cv-01544-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ALBERTO MENDEZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

J. S. WOODFORD, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 00-cv-01544-SI 

ORDER DENYING REQUEST TO 

COMPEL COMPLIANCE WITH

SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

Re: Dkt. No. 99

This matter is now before the court for consideration of plaintiff Mendez’s request to compel

defendant prison officials to comply with a settlement agreement executed in 2002. The request 

will be denied because the court lacks jurisdiction over the settlement agreement.

The parties settled this case nearly 18 years ago. They embodied the settlement terms in a 

written agreement signed in February 2002 in which Mendez essentially agreed to dismiss all claims 

with prejudice in exchange for $10,000 and continued medical treatment for his glaucoma.

1

 Docket 

No. 99-1 at 5. The agreement also mentioned a desire to have the undersigned hear any judicial 

proceeding to enforce the agreement:

In the event of a judicial proceeding to enforce this Agreement, the prevailing Party 

shall be entitled to recover its reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in that 

proceeding. The parties shall seek to have such a proceeding heard by the 

Honorable Susan Illston of the U.S. District Court, Northern District of California. 

Docket No. 99-1 at 9 (emphasis added). The agreement further stated that it would be governed 

by the “laws of the State of California.” Id. at 10.

 

1 The settlement agreement included other terms, such as provisions for which doctor would

be the primary provider for Mendez and what should happen if that doctor should need to cease 

providing care. 

Case 3:00-cv-01544-SI Document 100 Filed 12/05/19 Page 1 of 3
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 California

The Court then dismissed the case with prejudice on May 7, 2002. Docket No. 81. The 

dismissal order did not mention the retention of any jurisdiction by the court over disputes arising 

from the settlement agreement, nor did the order incorporate any term of the settlement agreement. 

The “stipulation and order of dismissal” prepared by the parties stated: “The parties hereby 

voluntarily stipulate to the dismissal with prejudice of the above-captioned action pursuant to Rule 

41(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and each party to bear his/her own attorneys’ fees and 

costs.” Docket No. 81 at 1-2. That single sentence of text was followed by the phrase “so stipulated” 

and the signatures of the attorneys, and then the phrase “it is so ordered” and the undersigned’s 

signature. Id. at 2. 

Unless it has specifically retained jurisdiction, a district court lacks authority to decide any 

dispute (e.g., a motion to enforce the agreement) arising from a settlement agreement. A district 

court retains jurisdiction over a settlement agreement only if (1) the order specifically states that the 

court retains jurisdiction over the settlement agreement, or (2) the court incorporates the terms of 

the agreement in its dismissal order. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 381 

(1994). When either of these situations arise, any breach of the settlement agreement is a violation 

of a court order and provides the court the ancillary jurisdiction necessary to enforce the order. Id. 

Otherwise, “enforcement of the settlement agreement is for state courts, unless there is some 

independent basis for federal jurisdiction.” Id. at 382.

Here, the May 7, 2002 dismissal order did not explicitly retain jurisdiction over the 

settlement agreement and did not incorporate any terms of the agreement into the order. Docket 

No. 81. The parties’ aspirational statement in the settlement agreement that they would “seek to 

have [an enforcement] proceeding heard” by the undersigned falls far short of giving the court 

jurisdiction to hear disputes about the settlement agreement. See Kokkonen, 511 U.S. at 381; cf.

Hagestad v. Tragesser, 49 F.3d 1430, 1433 (9th Cir. 1995).

2 The request to compel compliance 

 

2

In Hagestad, the Judge overseeing the settlement conference stated orally during the 

conference that he wished to maintain jurisdiction over subsequent proceedings concerning the 

settlement. Hagestad, 49 F.3d at 1433. Nonetheless, the Ninth Circuit concluded that because the 

court’s dismissal order neither retained jurisdiction nor incorporated terms of the settlement 

agreement, the court did not have jurisdiction over the settlement. Id.

Case 3:00-cv-01544-SI Document 100 Filed 12/05/19 Page 2 of 3
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

with the settlement agreement therefore is DENIED. Docket No. 99.

Mendez may not file any more motions or requests in this case seeking compliance with or 

other enforcement of the settlement agreement. Mendez's sole judicial recourse, if he believes the 

settlement agreement has been breached—a matter on which the court does not express an opinion—

is to file a new action in state court for a breach of the settlement agreement. See Kokkonen, 511 

U.S. at 382. Mendez also remains free to file a new action in federal or state court asserting a claim 

that his medical or eye care in recent years has been deficient. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 5, 2019

______________________________________

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:00-cv-01544-SI Document 100 Filed 12/05/19 Page 3 of 3