Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-02191/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-02191-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal

---

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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

)

)

)

) 2:04-cv-2191-GEB-GGH

REGINA BLACKHURST, )

) 

Plaintiff, ) ORDER

) 

v. )

)

TRINITY CHURCH, DONNA HARRELL, )

and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, )

)

Defendants. )

)

On January 3, 2006, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Settlement

indicating that the parties had reached a settlement agreement in this

action. On January 24, 2006, Plaintiff filed a motion to determine

the scope of her former counsel’s lien and to compel Defendant to

release settlement funds; this motion reveals a dispute has arisen

between Plaintiff’s present and former counsel. (Pl.’s Mem. Supp.

Mot. to Determine Scope and Release Checks 3-4). Plaintiff argues

“[t]his court has ancillary jurisdiction to adjudicate [this] dispute

Case 2:04-cv-02191-GEB-GGH Document 32 Filed 01/30/06 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

since it is so closely related to the underlying litigation.” (Id. at

2.)

Since this action is now settled, the issue is whether

“[t]he parties . . . have alleged . . . facts that would justify

federal jurisdiction over the settlement dispute.” O’Connor v.

Colvin, 70 F.3d 530, 532 (9th Cir. 1995). Diversity jurisdiction is

not alleged, “and no statute provides for federal jurisdiction over

this contract dispute.” Id.; see also Jessup v. Luther, 277 F.3d 926,

928 (7th Cir. 2002) (“The settlement is just another contract to be

enforced in the usual way, that is, by a fresh suit.”). The fact that

subject matter jurisdiction existed over the action before it settled

“does not confer jurisdiction.” O’Connor, 70 F.3d at 532.

Since I lack jurisdiction to address the dispute over the

settlement agreement, the action is dismissed without prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 27, 2006

/s/ Garland E. Burrell, Jr.

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:04-cv-02191-GEB-GGH Document 32 Filed 01/30/06 Page 2 of 2