Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_15-cv-05522/USCOURTS-cand-5_15-cv-05522-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 820
Nature of Suit: Copyright
Cause of Action: 17:504 Copyright Infringement

---

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

PETERSEN-DEAN INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

DIETER FOLK, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 15-cv-05522-NC 

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: 

JURISDICTION

Re: ECF 99, 108

Before the Court are plaintiff’s Motion to Vacate Dismissal and Enforce Settlement 

Agreement (ECF 99) and defendants’ Counter-motion to Compel Arbitration (ECF 108). 

Both motions arise from the settlement agreement that resolved this case. On September 

14, 2016, the parties filed a “Stipulation of Dismissal With Prejudice” under Federal Rule 

of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). ECF 93. That same day, the Court granted the 

proposed order and dismissed the case with prejudice. ECF 94.

Before the Court may assess the merits of the competing motions, it first must 

consider whether it has jurisdiction to do so. Federal district courts are courts of limited 

jurisdiction; “[t]hey possess only that power authorized by Constitution and statute, which 

is not to be expanded by judicial decree.” Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 

U.S. 375, 377 (1994) (citation omitted). Accordingly, “[i]t is to be presumed that a cause 

lies outside this limited jurisdiction, and the burden of establishing the contrary rests upon 

the party asserting jurisdiction.” Id.; Chandler v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 598 F.3d 

Case 5:15-cv-05522-NC Document 118 Filed 02/13/18 Page 1 of 2
Case No. 15-cv-05522-NC 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

1115, 1122 (9th Cir. 2010).

In Kokkonen, the Supreme Court considered whether it had jurisdiction to enforce 

the terms of a settlement agreement reached in a U.S. district court. The Court found that 

it did not, unless the Court “embod[ied] the settlement contract in its dismissal order” or 

“retain[ed] jurisdiction over the settlement contract.” 511 U.S. at 381-82. 

None of the exceptions in Kokkonen applies here. The parties in their Stipulation of 

Dismissal did not ask the Court to retain jurisdiction and did not expressly incorporate the 

terms of the settlement agreement. ECF 93. The Court’s dismissal order accordingly did 

not retain jurisdiction. ECF 94.

The Court finds that the post-settlement disputes presented here are of the same 

type that were dismissed in Kokkonen and Warner v. Cate, Case No. 11-cv-05039 YGR, 

2017 WL 5560651 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 20, 2017). Here, as in those cases, it appears that the 

Court lacks jurisdiction to enforce the settlement agreement.

In addition, the Court is not persuaded that plaintiff’s motion to set aside the 

dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6) is timely. A motion under Rule 

60(b) must be made within a “reasonable time.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(c). Here, the dismissal 

was entered September 14, 2016, and plaintiff’s motion to set aside the dismissal was filed 

January 17, 2018, which is more than 16 months later.

The Court therefore orders both parties to show cause in writing filed by February 

20, 2018, why it has jurisdiction to consider the motions at ECF 99 and 108. The Court 

VACATES the February 21 hearings in this case and will re-notice them if it determines 

that jurisdiction is satisfied.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 13, 2018 _____________________________________

NATHANAEL M. COUSINS

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:15-cv-05522-NC Document 118 Filed 02/13/18 Page 2 of 2