Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-01308/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-01308-12/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

DARREN KAWAMOTO,

 Plaintiff,

v.

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND 

REHABILITATION, et al., 

 Defendants.

Case No. 1: 11-cv-01308-LJO-MJS (PC)

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO 

ENFORCE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

(ECF Nos. 58 & 60)

On November 6, 2014, the parties reached a settlement agreement. (ECF No. 

54.) A stipulation and dismissal was submitted by the parties, (ECF No. 55.), and an 

order granting the dismissal was issued on November 17, 2014. (ECF No. 57.) 

Judgment was entered on the same date.

Before the Court is Plaintiff’s April 13, 2015 notice regarding Defendants’ failure 

to comply with the settlement. (ECF No. 58.) Defendants filed an opposition. (ECF No. 

59.) Plaintiff then filed a motion to compel enforcement of the settlement agreement 

(ECF No. 60.), and Defendants opposed the motion (ECF No. 62.). On June 25, 2015, 

the Court granted Plaintiff a 30-day extension of time to reply to Defendants’ opposition. 

(ECF No. 67.) Plaintiff failed to file a reply and the time to do so has passed. The 

matter is deemed submitted. Local Rule 230(l).

Case 1:11-cv-01308-LJO-MJS Document 68 Filed 08/18/15 Page 1 of 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

2

I. MOTION TO ENFORCE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

In Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of America, 511 U.S. 375 (1994), the 

Supreme Court considered the jurisdiction of federal courts to enforce settlement 

agreements. The Court held that once parties to a lawsuit have settled and the District 

Court has dismissed the case, the District Court does not have ancillary jurisdiction to 

enforce the parties’ settlement agreement. Id. at 379-81. Ancillary jurisdiction to 

enforce a settlement agreement may arise if the “parties’ obligation to comply with the 

terms of the settlement agreement had been made part of the order of dismissal – either 

by [a] separate provision (such as a provision “retaining jurisdiction” over the settlement 

agreement) or by incorporating the terms of the settlement agreement in the order.” Id.

at 381; Hagestad v. Tragesser, 49 F.3d 1430, 1433 (9th Cir. 1995) (quoting Kokkonen, 

511 U.S. at 381). Such specific language confers the requisite jurisdiction because a 

breach of the agreement thereby violates the order. Kokkonen, 511 U.S. at 381. 

Absent such language or an independent basis for jurisdiction, the enforcement of a 

settlement agreement is for the state courts. Id. at 382.

To the extent that Plaintiff's motions can be construed as requests brought 

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6), the Ninth Circuit has held that the 

repudiation or “complete frustration” of a settlement agreement can be grounds to set 

aside a judgment. See Keeling v. Sheet Metal Workers Int'l, 937 F.2d 408, 410 (9th Cir. 

1991); see also Kokkonen, 511 U.S. at 378 (distinguishing enforcement of a settlement 

agreement from reopening a dismissed suit because of breach of the agreement that 

was the basis for dismissal). 

In Plaintiff’s initial “notice” to the Court, Plaintiff contends that Defendants have 

breached the settlement agreement by failing to pay him the total settlement amount 

agreed upon. Defendants respond that the full settlement amount has already been 

paid to Plaintiff. The amount Plaintiff ultimately received is less than the anticipated 

amount during the settlement discussions because, unbeknownst to Defendants at the 

Case 1:11-cv-01308-LJO-MJS Document 68 Filed 08/18/15 Page 2 of 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

3

time, Plaintiff owed additional restitution from a prior case. 

Plaintiff subsequently filed a motion to compel enforcement of the settlement 

agreement. In that motion, Plaintiff argues that the State of California lacks the legal 

authority to collect the restitution from his 1991 case based on a change in the law in 

1994. Therefore, Defendants breached the settlement agreement by deducting that 

amount from his award. Defendants respond that the Court lacks jurisdiction to enforce 

the agreement. Even if the Court has jurisdiction, deducting the restitution amount from 

Plaintiff’s prior 1991 case pursuant to California Penal Code § 2085.5 was well within 

the terms of the settlement agreement. In so arguing, Defendants ask the Court to take 

judicial notice of abstracts of Plaintiff’s prior judgments.

Here, the order of dismissal did not explicitly retain jurisdiction over the 

settlement agreement nor did the order incorporate the terms of the agreement. Plaintiff 

has also not demonstrated the repudiation or “complete frustration” of the settlement 

agreement. Defendants issued the full settlement amount to Plaintiff. Plaintiff now 

essentially claims that Defendants breached the agreement because their deduction of 

certain restitution amounts was unauthorized by law and the terms of the agreement. 

The Court lacks jurisdiction to hear this claim. Plaintiff must pursue such breach of 

contract arguments in state court. Since the Court lacks jurisdiction to hear the claim, it 

need not decide the issue of judicial notice of Plaintiff’s claims.

II. CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Accordingly, the Court HEREBY ORDERS that Plaintiff’s motion to enforce the

settlement agreement is DENIED. (ECF Nos. 58 & 60.)

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 17, 2015 /s/Michael J. Seng 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:11-cv-01308-LJO-MJS Document 68 Filed 08/18/15 Page 3 of 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

4

Case 1:11-cv-01308-LJO-MJS Document 68 Filed 08/18/15 Page 4 of 4