Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-05102/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-05102-10/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Legal Malpractice

---

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

EUREKA DIVISION

XIONG MAN SITU, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

EUGENE WONG, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 13-cv-05102 JD (NJV)

ORDER DISMISSING PETITION FOR 

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AND 

MOTION TO ENFORCE JUDGMENT

Dkt. Nos. 63, 70

The district court entered an order on January 6, 2015, referring Plaintiffs' Petition for an 

Order to Show Cause In Contempt to the undersigned. (Doc. 67.) Plaintiffs subsequently filed a 

related Motion to Enforce Judgment, setting that matter before the undersigned. (Doc. 70.) On 

January 27, 2015, the undersigned entered an order pursuant to Local Civil Rule 7-1(b) finding 

these matters suitable for decision without oral argument and taking them under submission on the 

papers. (Doc. 75.) For the reasons discussed below, the court will dismiss Plaintiffs' motions.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

The undersigned conducted a settlement conference in this case on July 17, 2014, at which 

a settlement was reached. (Doc. 56.) The terms of the settlement were read into the record. Id. 

On July 18, 2014, Plaintiffs filed a notice of settlement.1

 (Doc. 57.) On July 21, 2015, District 

Judge Donato entered an order conditionally dismissing the case. (Doc. 58.) On December 23, 

 1 The text of the Notice of Settlement filed by Plaintiffs on July 18, 2014, provides as follows: 

"Please take notice that the parties settled this action at the settlement conference before the 

Honorable Nandor Vadas, United States Magistrate Judge. Although the settlement is subject to 

the parties signing a settlement agreement, the basic deal points were recited on the record by all 

parties."

Case 3:13-cv-05102-JD Document 76 Filed 01/29/15 Page 1 of 4
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

2014, Plaintiffs filed the Petition for an Order to Show Cause in Contempt now pending before 

this court. (Doc. 63.) On January 13, 2015, Plaintiffs filed a related Motion to Enforce Judgment, 

setting that matter before the undersigned. (Doc. 70.)

DISCUSSION

In their Petition for an Order to Show Cause in Contempt, Plaintiffs assert that under the 

terms of the written settlement agreement entered into by the parties, Defendants William Wong, 

Leland Wong, David Chun, Matthew Tsai, and the UMC Ford Corporation ("the UMC 

Defendants") were obligated to pay the sum of $140,000 to Plaintiffs' attorney's trust account on or 

before December 10, 2014. (Doc. 63.) Plaintiffs attach as Exhibit A to their Petition a copy of the 

settlement agreement. Plaintiffs further assert that "the parties agreed and the Court ordered" that 

failure to perform may be punished by civil contempt, citing paragraph 19 of the settlement 

agreement. Plaintiffs claim that the UMC Defendants have failed to pay any of the monies due 

under the settlement agreement, and therefore request that the court issue an order to show cause 

re civil contempt and set the matter for hearing.

In their Motion to Enforce Judgment, Plaintiffs ask that, "pursuant to the provisions of the 

settlement agreement dated September 2014 and the settlement entered in open court," judgment 

be entered against the UMC Defendants, jointly and severally, in the amount of $140,000. (Doc. 

70.)

"Enforcement of [a] 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 America, 411 U.S. 375, 378 (1994). Unless the court "embodies the 

settlement contract in its dismissal order" or "retain[s] jurisdiction over the settlement contract, 

enforcement of the settlement agreement is for state courts, unless there is some independent basis 

for federal jurisdiction." Id. at 381-82.

The Order of Dismissal entered by District Judge Donato on July 21, 2014, provides only 

as follows:

The parties hereto, by their counsel, having advised the court that they have agreed 

to a settlement of this cause, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this cause of action is 

dismissed without prejudice; provided, however that if any party hereto shall 

Case 3:13-cv-05102-JD Document 76 Filed 01/29/15 Page 2 of 4
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

certify to this court, within ninety (90) days, with proof of service thereof, 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.

If no certification is filed, after passage of ninety (90) days, the dismissal shall be 

with prejudice.

(Doc. 58.) Plaintiffs did not file a notice to the court within 90 days stating that the agreed 

settlement had not been delivered over; thus the dismissal of this case was with prejudice as of 

October 20, 2014.

Nowhere in District Judge Donato's Order of Dismissal does he mention the terms

settlement agreement or retain jurisdiction to enforce the settlement agreement. The order of 

dismissal therefore does not embody the settlement agreement as required under Kokkonen for the 

creation of jurisdiction over enforcement of the settlement agreement. See O'Connor v. Colvin, 70 

F.3d 530, 532 (9th Cir. 1995) (where parties filed their settlement agreement with the court and 

executed a stipulation of dismissal pursuant to FRCP 41(a)(i)(ii), the signed order granting which 

recited that the dismissal was "[b]ased on the Settlement Agreement amongst the parties," the 

order of dismissal was found not to "embody the settlement contract” as required under Kokkonen

for creation of ancillary jurisdiction and case was remanded to be dismissed for lack of 

jurisdiction). 

The settlement agreement in this case contains a provision that, "[i]n the event of a default, 

or any other dispute arising out of this Settlement Agreement, the parties agree that Magistrate 

Judge Nandor Vadas shall retain jurisdiction." (Doc. 63-1, p. 3-4.) Such an agreement by the 

parties, however, is insufficient to confer jurisdiction on this court. See O'Connor, 70 F.3d at 532 

("[n]or do the facts that the settlement agreement was filed with the court and that the court 

supervised the settlement negotiations create jurisdiction. 'The judge's mere awareness and 

approval of the terms of the settlement agreement do not suffice to make them part of his order.'” 

Id. (quoting Kokkonen, 70 F.3d at 381)). Even a district court's expressed intention to retain 

jurisdiction is insufficient to confer jurisdiction if that intention is not expressed in the order of 

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

statement by the settlement judge, the court had not retained jurisdiction over the settlement 

Case 3:13-cv-05102-JD Document 76 Filed 01/29/15 Page 3 of 4
4

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

agreement where the order of dismissal merely recited: “Counsel having informed the court that 

this action has been settled, this action is dismissed with prejudice.")

Here, District Judge Donato dismissed this case on the ground that he had been advised 

that the parties had "agreed to a settlement of this cause." In light of the above authorities, this 

language was clearly insufficient to retain jurisdiction over the settlement entered into by the 

parties. The court therefore finds that it lacks jurisdiction to address the Petition and Motion by 

Plaintiffs directed to enforcement of the settlement agreement. 

Accordingly, Plaintiffs' Petition and Motion are HEREBY DISMISSED for lack of 

jurisdiction.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 29, 2015

______________________________________

NANDOR J. VADAS

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:13-cv-05102-JD Document 76 Filed 01/29/15 Page 4 of 4