Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_09-cv-01312/USCOURTS-casd-3_09-cv-01312-13/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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANTHONY WAYNE JOHNSON, JR., Civil No. 09cv1312-LAB (DHB)

Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANTS

TO COMPLY WITH SETTLEMENT

AGREEMENT

[ECF No. 224]

v.

M. GAINS et al.,

Defendants.

On July 6, 2012, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Compel Defendants to Comply with the Settlement

Agreement. (ECF No. 224.) Plaintiff argues Defendants failed to pay him the full amount the parties

agreed to in their settlement agreement. Plaintiff contends Defendants were supposed to pay him

$5,000.00, but he has only received $4, 860.25. Therefore, Plaintiff asks the Court to order Defendants

to pay him the $139.75 difference. He also request $3.00 for postage reimbursement and sanctions of

$500.00 For the reasons set forth below, the Court finds Plaintiff’s motion must be DENIED. 

I. BACKGROUND 

On June 8, 2009, Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, brought this action pursuant to 42

U.S.C. § 1983. On March 21, 2012, the parties reached a settlement at the Mandatory Settlement

Conference. (ECF No. 216.) Thereafter, the parties filed a Joint Motion for Voluntary Dismissal With

Prejudice on March 27, 2012. (ECF No. 218.) The parties stipulated that the action would “be

dismissed with prejudice as to all claims and all Defendants, with each party to bear their own costs”

- 1 - 09cv1312-LAB (DHB)

Case 3:09-cv-01312-LAB-DHB Document 225 Filed 07/13/12 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

under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). The parties did not ask the Court to retain

jurisdiction over the settlement agreement. On April 2, 2012, the Honorable Larry A. Burns dismissed

the case with prejudice. (ECF No. 219.) In the Order of Dismissal, the Court did not reserve

jurisdiction to enforce the settlement agreement.

II. ANALYSIS

In Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of America. 511 U.S. 375, 381-82 (1994), the Supreme

Court held that a district court lacks authority to enforce a settlement agreement following dismissal of

an action under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), unless the court affirmatively retains jurisdiction over the

settlement. A district court can retain jurisdiction by either (1) expressly stating in the order of dismissal

that the court shall retain jurisdiction, or (2) incorporating the terms of the settlement agreement into

the dismissal order. Id. “Absent such action, however, enforcement of the settlement agreement is for

state courts, unless there is some independent basis for federal jurisdiction.” Id. at 382. See also 

William Keeton Enterprises, Inc. v. A All American Strip-O-Rama, Inc., 74 F.3d 178, 182-83 (9th Cir.

1996); Hagestad v. Tragesser, 49 F.3d 1430, 1433 (9th Cir. 1995).

Here, the Court’s Order of Dismissal does not state that the Court would retain jurisdiction over

the settlement agreement. Therefore, the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to enforce the terms of

the parties’ settlement agreement. Any further enforcement of the settlement agreement is a matter for

state court. See Kokkonen, 511 U.S. at 381 (“The short of the matter is this: The suit involves a claim

for breach of a contract, part of the consideration for which was dismissal of an earlier federal suit. No

federal statute makes that connection (if it constitutionally could) the basis for federal-court jurisdiction

over the contract dispute.”). 

III. CONCLUSION

Because the Court does not have jurisdiction to enforce the settlement agreement, Plaintiff’s

Motion to Compel Defendants to Comply with the Settlement Agreement is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: July 13, 2012

DAVID H. BARTICK

United States Magistrate Judge

- 2 - 09cv1312-LAB (DHB)

Case 3:09-cv-01312-LAB-DHB Document 225 Filed 07/13/12 Page 2 of 2