Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-00774/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-00774-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

“Of course, the mere fact that the parties agree that the 1

[federal] court should exercise . . . jurisdiction [over their

Settlement Agreement] is not binding on the court.” Arata v. Nu Skin

Int’l, Inc., 96 F.3d 1265, 1269 (9th Cir. 1996). 

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CARL SCHMID, )

)

Plaintiff, ) 2:03-cv-0774-GEB-PAN (JFM)

)

v. ) ORDER DISMISSING ACTION

)

COUNTY OF SAN JOAQUIN; BAXTER )

DUNN; GREGORY BETTI; N. BRAND; )

TOM SWEESO; JERRY HERZICK; BILL )

HUGHES; K. WARD; and SARGENT )

SKAFF, )

)

Defendants. )

)

The “Stipulation for Settlement and Judgment” filed 

April 25, 2006, (“Settlement”) reflects the settlement of this action. 

“The settlement is just another contract to be enforced in the usual

way, that is, by a fresh suit[,]” unless the federal court exercises

jurisdiction over it as is requested in the Settlement. Jessup v. 1

Luther, 277 F.3d 926, 929 (7th Cir. 2002).

 

Case 2:03-cv-00774-GEB-PAN Document 24 Filed 04/28/06 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

While it is recognized that federal jurisdiction can be

exercised over certain settlements, exercising jurisdiction is not

automatic. Rather, a settlement must be analyzed for determination

whether the exercise of jurisdiction over it is “essential to the

conduct of federal-court business.” Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins.

Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 382 (1994). The Settlement has transformed

the settled action into California State agreements concerning

monetary, environmental and aesthetic matters. Since the monitoring

and/or adjudication of these settled matters is not “essential to the

conduct of federal-court business[,]” jurisdiction will not be

exercised over the Settlement. Since this action is settled, this

action is dismissed. See Oswalt v. Scripto, Inc., 616 F.2d 191, 194

(5th Cir. 1980) (revealing that when a settlement is tantamount to a

stipulated dismissal, a dismissal order should issue). The Clerk of

the Court is directed to close this action.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 28, 2006

/s/ Garland E. Burrell, Jr.

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:03-cv-00774-GEB-PAN Document 24 Filed 04/28/06 Page 2 of 2