Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01188/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01188-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Fitness Evolution
Plaintiff
Kenna Media, LLC
Counter Claimant
Pleasanton Fitness, LLC
Counter Defendant

Document Text:

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PLEASANTON FITNESS, LLC d/b/a 

Fitness Evolution, a California limited 

liability company,

Plaintiff,

v.

KENNA MEDIA, LLC, a Washington 

limited liability company,

Defendant.

No. 1:15-cv-01188-DAD-SMS

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S 

MOTION TO ENFORCE SETTLEMENT

AGREEMENT DUE TO LACK OF 

JURISDICTION

(Doc. No. 20)

On June 26, 2015, plaintiff Pleasanton Fitness, LLC brought this action against defendant 

Kenna Media, LLC in the Stanislaus County Superior Court seeking judicial determinations that

(1) plaintiff and defendant did not enter into a contract for the bulk mailing of flyers and (2) 

defendant was not entitled to any compensation under the doctrine of quantum meruit for 

defendant’s subsequent bulk mailing of flyers. (Doc. No. 1-1, at 6.) Defendant removed the 

action to federal court on the basis of diversity jurisdiction. (Doc. No. 1.) In its answer and 

counterclaim, defendant also pled causes of action for: (1) breach of contract; (2) breach of 

implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing; (3) unjust enrichment; (4) promissory estoppel; 

Case 1:15-cv-01188-DAD-SMS Document 29 Filed 06/08/16 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

and (5) fraud. (Doc. No. 8.)

On February 17, 2016, plaintiff filed a notice of settlement with this court. (Doc. No. 16.) 

The settlement agreement, attached only now as an exhibit to the present motion, resolved in full 

the parties’ claims, but provided that “[t]he USDC EDC court shall have jurisdiction over the 

parties to enforce the settlement until performance in full of the terms pursuant to Code of Civil 

Procedure section 664.6.” (Doc. No. 20–2, at 6.) On March 13, 2016, the parties executed a 

stipulation of dismissal, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(ii), with prejudice,

“in consideration of” the settlement agreement between them. (Doc. No. 18.) Nowhere in that 

stipulation of dismissal was the court’s retention of jurisdiction to enforce the parties’ settlement 

agreement mentioned. (Id.) On March 14, 2016, the court issued an order closing the case. 

(Doc. No. 19.) 

Now before the court is defendant’s motion to enforce the settlement, pursuant to 

California Code of Civil Procedure § 664.6, and request for attorney’s fees and costs in the 

amount of $4,800 in connection with the motion to enforce the settlement agreement. (Doc. No. 

20.) On June 7, 2016, the court heard oral argument on the motion. (Doc. No. 28.) Attorney 

Jeffrey Rooney appeared on behalf of plaintiff and attorney Ada Wong appeared on behalf of 

defendant. For the reasons, the motion will be denied because the courts lacks jurisdiction to 

grant the requested relief.

ANALYSIS

In order to enforce the settlement agreement, the court must have subject matter 

jurisdiction to do so. “Courts have inherent power to enforce settlements between the parties in 

pending cases.” In re City Equities Anaheim, Ltd., 22 F.3d 954, 957 (9th Cir. 1994). However, a 

court has no power to enforce a settlement after a case has been dismissed, unless it has retained 

jurisdiction to do so. Hagestad v. Tragesser, 49 F.3d 1430, 1432 (9th Cir. 1995). As the United 

States Supreme Court has stated:

[W]hen, as occurred here, the dismissal is pursuant to Rule 

41(a)(1)(ii) (which does not by its terms empower a district court to 

attach conditions to the parties’ stipulation of dismissal) we think 

the court is authorized to embody the settlement contract in its 

dismissal order (or, what has the same effect, retain jurisdiction 

Case 1:15-cv-01188-DAD-SMS Document 29 Filed 06/08/16 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

over the settlement contract) if the parties agree. Absent such 

action, however, enforcement of the settlement agreement is for 

state courts, unless there is some independent basis for federal 

jurisdiction.

Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 381-82 (1994). The Ninth Circuit has 

since elaborated on the holding in Kokkonen, stating as follows:

With the benefit of the Kokkonen decision to guide us, we hold that 

an order “based on” the settlement agreement, without more, does 

not “embody the settlement contract,” Kokkonen, 511 U.S. at 381, 

and is insufficient to create ancillary jurisdiction. Any dismissal 

under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(ii) is necessarily “based on” a 

settlement and stipulation to dismiss. To read this language as 

“incorporating the terms of the settlement,” id. at 381, would negate 

the holding of Kokkonen. The settlement terms must be part of the 

dismissal in order for violation of the settlement agreement to 

amount to a violation of the court’s order. Kokkonen, 511 U.S. at 

381. Without a violation of the court’s order, there is no 

jurisdiction. Id.

O’Connor v. Colvin, 70 F.3d 530, 532 (9th Cir. 1995).

Under California law:

If parties to pending litigation stipulate, in a writing signed by the 

parties outside the presence of the court or orally before the court, 

for settlement of the case, or part thereof, the court, upon motion, 

may enter judgment pursuant to the terms of the settlement. If 

requested by the parties, the court may retain jurisdiction over the 

parties to enforce the settlement until performance in full of the 

terms of the settlement.

Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 664.6. Here, while the settlement agreement provided that the court would 

retain jurisdiction to enforce the settlement, the settlement agreement itself was never provided to 

the court prior to the filing of the pending motion to enforce settlement. Moreover, the parties 

never requested in their stipulated dismissal that the court retain jurisdiction to enforce the terms 

of the settlement. Accordingly, jurisdiction to do so was not retained by the court in dismissing 

this action. Notably, the court order closing the case did not embody the settlement contract 

within or retain jurisdiction over the settlement contract. (Doc. No. 19.) 

Because this action is no longer pending, the court does not have subject matter 

jurisdiction over it and cannot enforce the settlement agreement under California Civil Procedure 

Code § 664.6. See O’Connor, 70 F.3d at 532; Renaissance Ribbons, Inc. v. Hadley Pollet, LLC, 

Case 1:15-cv-01188-DAD-SMS Document 29 Filed 06/08/16 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

No. 2:07-cv-1271-JAM-DAD, 2008 WL 5179096, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 8, 2008). The case law 

cited by defendant is not to the contrary, but rather precludes § 664.6’s applicability when a 

settlement agreement has been executed prior to the pendency of litigation. See Kirby v. S. 

California Edison Co., 78 Cal. App. 4th 840, 843–46 (2000). Defendant’s only remedy, if any, is

to bring a separate breach of contract action for the alleged breach of the settlement agreement. 

O’Connor, 70 F.3d at 532 (9th Cir. 1995) (“A motion to enforce the settlement agreement, then, 

is a separate contract dispute requiring its own independent basis for jurisdiction.”).

For all of these reasons, defendant’s motion to enforce the settlement (Doc. No. 20) is 

denied for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 7, 2016 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-01188-DAD-SMS Document 29 Filed 06/08/16 Page 4 of 4