Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-01828/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-01828-2/pdf.json

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

---

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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Joshua Ferrill, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Union Pacific Railroad Company, 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 08-1828-PHX-MHM

ORDER

Currently before the Court is Magistrate Judge David Duncan’s Report and

Recommendation (“R&R”), issued on February 22, 2011. (Doc. 66). Therein, Magistrate

Judge Duncan recommends that Plaintiff’s attorneys’ Unopposed Motion to Enforce

Settlement be denied. Neither Party has objected to the R&R. “Failure to object to a

magistrate judge's recommendation waives all objections to the judge's findings of fact.” 

Jones v. Wood, 207 F.3d 557, 562 n. 2 (9th Cir. 2000). A district court, however, must

review the legal analysis in a Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation de novo. 

See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); but see United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114,1121

(9th Cir. 2003) (noting that failure to timely file objections to the magistrate judge's R&R

may result in the acceptance of the Report and Recommendation by the district court

without further review).

I. PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL BACKGROUND

On May 26, 2010, this Court entered an Order denying Defendant’s Motion for

Case 2:08-cv-01828-MHM Document 67 Filed 03/31/11 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 -

Summary Judgment. (Doc. 44). Thereafter, on August 9, 2010, the Parties engaged in a

settlement conference before Magistrate Judge David Duncan. (Doc. 59). The

conference resulted in settlement, and on September 15, 2010, the Parties filed their

Stipulation of Dismissal with Prejudice. (Doc. 62). Accordingly, on September 22, 2010,

this Court issued an Order for Dismissal, noting the fact of the settlement and dismissing

the case with prejudice. (Doc. 63).

On February 22, 2011, Plaintiff’s attorneys filed the Unopposed Motion to Enforce

Settlement. (Doc. 64). Therein, they informed this Court that Plaintiff had refused to

endorse the settlement check, as was required of him, and could not be reached, and that

Plaintiff’s refusal to sign the check was stalling the final resolution of this case. 

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s attorneys requested that this Court order Defendant to issue a

new settlement check naming Plaintiff’s attorneys as the sole payees. On February 14,

2011, this Court referred Plaintiff’s attorneys’ motion to Magistrate Judge Duncan. (Doc.

65). On February 22, 2011, Magistrate Judge Duncan issued the instant R&R,

recommending that Plaintiff’s attorneys’ motion be denied. (Doc. 66). Magistrate Judge

Duncan concluded that the Parties had not taken the necessary steps to preserve this

Court’s jurisdiction over the settlement and, as a result, the Court lacked jurisdiction to

take any further action in this matter.

II. DISCUSSION

This Court agrees with, and adopts in full, the factual findings and legal reasoning

of the R&R. As so eloquently explained therein, a court retains jurisdiction over postdismissal settlement issues only where the order of dismissal contains a provision

expressly retaining the court’s jurisdiction or where the court has incorporated the terms

of the settlement into the order of dismissal. (R&R at 2 (citing Kokkonen v. Guardian

Life Ins. Co of America, 511 U.S. 375 (1994)). Magistrate Judge Duncan correctly noted

that the Court’s September 22, 2010 dismissal Order contains no jurisdiction retaining

provision and does not set forth the terms of the settlement. The Parties argue, however,

that Magistrate Judge Duncan’s August 9, 2010 minute entry, which states that a

Case 2:08-cv-01828-MHM Document 67 Filed 03/31/11 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 -

settlement has been reached and notes that “the essential terms of the Settlement

Agreement have been put forth on the record,” incorporated the terms of the settlement by

reference into this Court’s Order of dismissal. (Doc. 59). The R&R rejected this

argument, and this Court agrees with its analysis. The minute entry is not an order of

dismissal, and only a district judge, not a magistrate judge, has the authority to delineate

the terms of a dismissal order. Additionally, it is plainly wrong to suggest, as Plaintiff’s

attorney’s have, that a minute order which does not actually contain the terms of the

settlement could somehow silently incorporate those terms into a separate order of

dismissal. Finally, although this Court was not in fact aware of the terms of the Parties’

settlement agreement, it notes that a court’s awareness and approval of the terms of a

settlement does not incorporate those terms into the dismissal order. Kokkonen, 511 U.S.

at 381 (“The judge's mere awareness and approval of the terms of the settlement

agreement do not suffice to make them part of his order.”). 

As Magistrate Judge Duncan explained, the steps that must be taken to preserve a

court’s jurisdiction after settlement and dismissal are clear and well known, and these

Parties elected not to take those steps. This Court therefore no longer has jurisdiction

over this case. Consequently, it finds, after de novo review, that Magistrate Judge

Duncan’s legal analysis and conclusions are correct, and that Plaintiff’s attorneys’

Unopposed Motion to Enforce Settlement must be denied.

Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED adopting in full the findings of fact and conclusions

of law of the R&R. (Doc. 66). 

/ / / 

Case 2:08-cv-01828-MHM Document 67 Filed 03/31/11 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 -

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying Plaintiff’s attorneys’ Unopposed Motion

to Enforce Settlement. (Doc. 64).

DATED this 31st day of March, 2011.

Case 2:08-cv-01828-MHM Document 67 Filed 03/31/11 Page 4 of 4