Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-04067/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-04067-8/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 791
Nature of Suit: Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA)
Cause of Action: 29:1001 E.R.I.S.A.: Employee Retirement

---

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

 On March 27, 2007, defendants’ counsel filed an ex parte application to withdraw

as counsel and for extension of the deadline for defendants to respond to the instant

motion. In an order filed March 28, 2007, the Court granted the application and extended

to April 27, 2007 the deadline for defendants to respond to the instant motion. The court

cautioned defendants that Cofab and Arcmatic could not appear in the instant action

without counsel; to date, however, no defendant has filed a substitution of counsel and, as

noted, none has responded to the instant motion.

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SHOP IRONWORKERS LOCAL 790

PENSION TRUST et al.,

Plaintiffs

 v.

COFAB STEEL CORPORATION et al.,

Defendants /

No. C-06-4067 MMC

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO

ENFORCE SETTLEMENT

(Docket No. 30)

Before the Court is plaintiff’s motion, filed March 22, 2007, to enforce a December

19, 2006 settlement agreement that purported to resolve the instant action between

plaintiffs Shop Ironworkers Local 790 Pension Trust, Joint Board of Trustees of the Shop

Ironworkers Local 790 Pension Trust, and Michael Newington as Trustee, and defendants

Cofab Steel Corporation (“Cofab”), Arcmatic Integrated Systems, Inc. (“Arcmatic”), Charles

Bock, and Irma Bock. No opposition to the motion has been filed.1

 Having considered the

papers filed in support of the motion, the Court finds the matter appropriate for resolution

without oral argument, see Civil L.R. 7-1(b), hereby VACATES the May 18, 2007 hearing,

and rules as follows.

Federal courts generally lack subject matter jurisdiction to hear a motion to enforce a

Case 3:06-cv-04067-MMC Document 38 Filed 05/08/07 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

 The Court expresses no opinion as to whether the district court would have subject

matter jurisdiction over such a suit.

2

settlement agreement in the absence of an independent jurisdictional basis with respect to

the motion. See Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of America, 511 U.S. 375, 378 (1994)

(“Enforcement of [a] settlement agreement, . . . whether through award of damages or

decree of specific performance, is more than just a continuation or renewal of the

dismissed suit, and hence requires its own basis for jurisdiction.”). Here, no such

independent jurisdictional basis is asserted. 

Further, there is no basis here for the exercise of ancillary jurisdiction. A court has

ancillary jurisdiction to enforce a settlement agreement if “the parties’ obligation to comply

with the terms of the settlement agreement [has] been made part of the order of dismissal –

either by separate provision (such as a provision ‘retaining jurisdiction’ over the settlement

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

id. at 381. Here, however, the Court did not retain jurisdiction over enforcement of the

settlement agreement, and, consequently, the Court does not have ancillary jurisdiction

over the instant motion.

Lastly, the settlement itself does not provide for a motion to enforce. Rather, the

settlement expressly provides that if defendants breach the settlement agreement, plaintiffs

“shall be permitted to file a Complaint in the United States District Court, Northern District

for the purpose of having Judgment entered for the full assessed amount, plus liquidated

damages, interest and attorneys[‘] fees and costs, less any payments made by the

Arcmatic Parties.” (See McCulloch Decl. ¶ 1 and Ex. A (Settlement Agreement) ¶ 2.1(c)

(emphasis added).)2

Accordingly, the instant motion is hereby DENIED.

This order terminates Docket No. 30.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 8, 2007 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:06-cv-04067-MMC Document 38 Filed 05/08/07 Page 2 of 2