Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_95-cv-05947/USCOURTS-caed-1_95-cv-05947-19/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MAX LOPEZ, JR.,

Plaintiff,

v.

G. A. SMITH, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:95-cv-05947-LJO-YNP PC

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO ENFORCE

SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

(Doc. 206)

Plaintiff Max Lopez, Jr. (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On July 14, 2009, Plaintiff filed a

motion requesting the Court to enforce the settlement agreement reached between Plaintiff and

Defendants. (Doc. #206.)

On December 30, 2008, Defendants submitted a notice to the Court indicating that the parties

had reached a settlement in this matter. (Doc. #200.) On February 18, 2009, the parties submitted

a stipulation for voluntary dismissal of this action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

41(a)(1)(A)(ii). (Doc. #203.) The stipulation made no reference to any settlement agreement. On

February 19, 2009, an order was entered dismissing this action with prejudice pursuant to the

stipulation. (Doc. #204.) The order made no reference to any settlement agreement and the order

did not expressly retain jurisdiction to enforce any settlement agreement.

On July 14, 2009, Plaintiff filed a motion requesting the Court to enforce the settlement. 

(Doc. #206.) Plaintiff claims that pursuant to the settlement agreement, Defendants agreed to pay

Plaintiff $70,000. Defendants have not yet paid Plaintiff. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants told

1

Case 1:95-cv-05947-LJO -WMW Document 208 Filed 02/04/10 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

Plaintiff that he would receive the settlement money within six to eight weeks. On August 14, 2009,

Defendants filed a response to Plaintiff’s motion. (Doc. #207.) Defendants argue that the Court

lacks jurisdiction to enforce the settlement agreement. Defendants explain that Plaintiff has not yet

received the money because of the fiscal crisis in California and the Legislature’s delay in approving

a state budget.

The Court finds Defendants’ reasoning to be persuasive. “[F]ederal courts do not have

inherent or ancillaryjurisdiction to enforce a settlement agreement simply because the subject of that

settlement was a federal lawsuit.” O’Connor v. Colvin, 70 F.3d 530, 531-32 (9th Cir. 1995) (citing

Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co., 511 U.S. 375 (1994)). The exception to this rule is that federal

courts are authorized to embody a settlement contract in the dismissal order and thereby retain

jurisdiction over the settlement contract if the parties agree: “If the dismissal order incorporates the

settlement terms . . . a violation of those terms would amount to a violation of the court’s order. The

court would then have ancillary jurisdiction to ‘vindicate its authority.’” Id. at 532 (quoting

Kokkonen, 511 U.S. at 380).

Here, neither the stipulation of voluntary dismissal nor the Court’s order dismissing this case

made any reference to the settlement agreement. Therefore, the Court did not incorporate the terms

of the settlement agreement in its order dismissing this action. Plaintiff has not alleged any facts that

would otherwise justify federal jurisdiction over the settlement dispute.

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion to enforce the settlement

agreement, filed on July 14, 2009, is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 4, 2010 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2

Case 1:95-cv-05947-LJO -WMW Document 208 Filed 02/04/10 Page 2 of 2