Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-04952/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-04952-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 370
Nature of Suit: Other Fraud
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Fraud

---

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

LUXURYCATALOGS.COM, INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

DANIEL G. MILLER,

Defendant.

Case No. 14-cv-04952-TEH (MEJ)

REPORT & RECOMMENDATION RE: 

MOTION TO ENFORCE SETTLEMENT 

AGREEMENT

Re: Dkt. No. 60

On November 7, 2014, Plaintiff Luxurycatalogs.com, Inc. (“Plaintiff”) filed a Complaint

seeking to recover damages it incurred after Defendant Daniel G. Miller (“Defendant”) allegedly 

sold it certain rare books he had purportedly stolen. Compl. ¶ 1, Dkt. No. 1. On November 2, 

2015, the parties and their respective counsel appeared before the undersigned for a settlement 

conference, at which time they reached a settlement and placed it on the record. 11/2/2015 Min. 

Order, Dkt. No. 55; see also Tr., Dkt. No. 62-4. Pursuant to the terms of the parties’ agreement, 

Defendant agreed to pay Plaintiff $280,000, with the first payment of $20,000 due by December 2, 

2015. Tr. at 3. 

On November 3, 2015, the Honorable Thelton E. Henderson, the presiding judge in this 

matter, dismissed this case “with prejudice; provided, however, that if any party hereto shall 

certify to this Court, with proof of service of a copy to opposing counsel, within sixty (60) days 

from the date of this order, that the agreed consideration for said settlement has not been delivered 

over, the foregoing Order shall stand vacated and this cause shall forthwith be restored to the 

calendar to be set for trial.” Order of Dismissal, Dkt. No. 56. Judge Henderson did not expressly 

retain jurisdiction to enforce the parties’ agreement. 

On December 23, 2015, Plaintiff filed the present Motion to Enforce Settlement, claiming 

Case 3:14-cv-04952-TEH Document 64 Filed 12/28/15 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

Defendant failed to make the first agreed settlement payment, and therefore requesting an order 

enforcing the settlement agreement and requiring specific performance and entry of judgment as a 

result of Defendant’s default. Dkt. No. 61. Judge Henderson thereafter referred the Motion to the 

undersigned. Dkt. No. 63.

Courts have “the inherent power summarily to enforce a settlement agreement involving an 

action pending before it.” Brionez v. U.S. Dep’t of Agric., 2007 WL 217680, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 

26, 2007) (citing In re Suchy, 786 F.2d 900, 902-903 (9th Cir. 1985)). But courts have no inherent 

power to enforce settlement agreements after a case has been dismissed: “Enforcement of the 

settlement agreement . . . is more than just a continuation or renewal of the dismissed suit, and 

hence requires its own basis for jurisdiction.” Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 

U.S. 375, 378 (1994); see also Hagestad v. Tragesser, 49 F.3d 1430, 1433 (9th Cir. 1994). “Thus, 

if the original action has been dismissed, and the court has not retained jurisdiction to enforce the 

settlement agreement, a party seeking to enforce the terms of the settlement agreement must file a 

new action in a court that has subject-matter jurisdiction.” Hill v. Kaiser Found. Health Plan, 

2015 WL 5138561, at *5 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 1, 2015) (citing Schwarzer, Tashima & Wagstaffe, Cal. 

Prac. Guide: Fed. Civ. Pro. Before Trial (“Schwarzer”) ¶ 15:141 (The Rutter Group 2015)). 

A settlement agreement is “made part of the order of dismissal—either by separate 

provision (such as a provision ‘retaining jurisdiction’ over the settlement agreement) or by 

incorporating the terms of the settlement agreement in the order.” Kokkonen, 511 U.S. at 381. “In 

that event, a breach of the agreement would be a violation of the order, and ancillary jurisdiction 

to enforce that agreement would therefore exist.” Id. However, a dismissal that is “based on” an 

agreement does not “embody” the agreement, and the court does not have ancillary jurisdiction to 

enforce the agreement. O’Connor v. Colvin, 70 F.3d 530, 532 (9th Cir. 1995) (citing Kokkonen, 

511 U.S. at 581). “Similarly, attaching the agreement to the dismissal order may show the judge’s 

awareness of and approval of the settlement, but it does not “incorporate” the agreement as 

required by Kokkonen.” Hill, 2015 WL 5138561, at *6 (citing Schwarzer ¶ 15:141.3).

Here, the Order of Dismissal does not expressly retain jurisdiction over or incorporate the 

terms of the parties’ settlement agreement. Although the Order refers to the parties’ settlement in 

Case 3:14-cv-04952-TEH Document 64 Filed 12/28/15 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

general, this merely shows the Court’s awareness of the settlement, but does not “embody the 

settlement agreement” or incorporate it. See O’Connor, 70 F.3d at 532 (citing Kokkonen, 511 U.S. 

at 581). Thus, the District Court does not have ancillary jurisdiction to enforce the agreement, and 

the undersigned therefore RECOMMENDS the Court DENY Plaintiff’s Motion. 

However, because Plaintiff filed its Motion within 60 days from the date of the Order of 

Dismissal, the undersigned RECOMMENDS the Court VACATE the Order of Dismissal and 

RESTORE this “to the calendar to be set for trial.” See Order of Dismissal. 

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72, any party may serve and file objections to 

this Report and Recommendation within 14 days after being served. 

IT IS SO RECOMMENDED.

Dated: December 28, 2015

______________________________________

MARIA-ELENA JAMES

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:14-cv-04952-TEH Document 64 Filed 12/28/15 Page 3 of 3