Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-00675/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-00675-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Michael Franklin
Defendant
Tahoe Regional Planning Agency
Plaintiff

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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TAHOE REGIONAL PLANNING No. CIV.S-04-0675 WBS DAD PS

AGENCY,

Plaintiff, ORDER ENFORCING

v. SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

MICHAEL FRANKLIN,

Defendant.

__________________________/

This closed case is before the court on an order to show

cause why the parties’ settlement agreement should not be enforced. 

For the reasons explained below, the court will order defendant

Michael Franklin to comply with that settlement agreement.

Plaintiff Tahoe Regional Planning Agency initiated this

action by filing its complaint on April 5, 2004. The matter

subsequently was referred to the undersigned pursuant to Local Rule

72-302(c)(21) due to defendant Franklin’s pro se status. Following a

settlement conference, the parties settled this matter. By order

filed April 29, 2005, the assigned district judge dismissed the

Case 2:04-cv-00675-WBS-DAD Document 34 Filed 10/05/06 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

2

action pursuant to the settlement agreement reached between the

parties. That order expressly stated that the court, and the

undersigned in particular, would retain jurisdiction to enforce the

terms of that agreement. Moreover, the settlement agreement was

incorporated by reference in the district judge’s order and attached

as an exhibit thereto.

On November 9, 2005, plaintiff filed notice that defendant

had not satisfied his obligations under the settlement agreement. 

The court then issued an order directing the parties to show cause

why the terms of the settlement agreement should not be enforced. 

The parties were directed to appear personally, or through counsel if

represented by an attorney, at a show cause hearing. Each party was

further directed to file a written report addressing the status of

the satisfaction of the settlement agreement.

The show cause hearing was held on December 2, 2005. 

Jordan C. Kahn appeared on behalf of plaintiff. Defendant Michael

Franklin neither appeared nor responded to the order to show cause in

writing as required. Defendant Franklin did contact the court by

telephone prior to the hearing to indicate he would not be appearing

due to another court appearance in an unrelated state court matter. 

At the hearing, plaintiff was granted an additional opportunity to

address enforcement of the settlement agreement in a letter brief,

which plaintiff submitted following the hearing.

“[A] district court does not retain ‘inherent’ or

‘ancillary’ subject matter jurisdiction to enforce a settlement

simply because the dismissal of a federal action served as part of

Case 2:04-cv-00675-WBS-DAD Document 34 Filed 10/05/06 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

3

the consideration for the settlement agreement.” Hagestad v.

Tragesser, 49 F.3d 1430, 1433 (9th Cir. 1995)(citing Kokkonen v.

Guardian Life Insurance Company of America, 511 U.S. 375, 378-80

(1994)). “When the parties' compliance with the terms of the

settlement or the court's retention of jurisdiction over the

settlement are included in the terms of the dismissal order, however,

a breach of the agreement violates that order and the court has

ancillary jurisdiction to enforce the agreement.” Hagestad, 49 F.3d

at 1433. See also O'Connor v. Colvin, 70 F.3d 530, 532 (9th Cir.

1995)(“If the dismissal order incorporates the settlement terms, ...

a violation of those terms would amount to a violation of the court's

order. The court would then have ancillary jurisdiction ....”).

This action arose out of defendant’s alleged violations of

the Tahoe Regional Planning Compact and its implementing Code of

Ordinances in connection with the removal of trees on a lot owned by

defendant. In relevant part, the parties’ settlement agreement

required defendant to pay plaintiff $5,000 as well as to re-forest

his lot as directed by plaintiff and remove a vehicle therefrom. The

agreement required plaintiff to file a dismissal. 

Plaintiff timely filed the required dismissal. However, as

demonstrated by plaintiff in the papers filed in connection with the

order to show cause, defendant Franklin has not satisfied any of his

obligations under the settlement agreement. (See Decl. of Jordan C.

Kahn in Supp. of TRPA’s Request for Mag. J. to Exercise Continuing

Jurisd.) Additionally, in the order of dismissal the district judge

indicated that “[t]his Court, and the Honorable Magistrate Judge Dale

Case 2:04-cv-00675-WBS-DAD Document 34 Filed 10/05/06 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

 In order to ensure that the parties have a copy of the 1

relevant settlement agreement, the Clerk of the Court is directed to

serve the parties copies of plaintiff’s request for dismissal (Doc.

no. 27) and the district judge’s order thereon (Doc. no. 28) along

with a copy of this order.

4

A. Drozd in particular, will retain continuing jurisdiction to

enforce the terms of the Settlement Agreement attached as exhibit A

hereto.” (Order filed April 29, 2005.) Therefore, this court has

retained jurisdiction to enforce the settlement agreement and direct

defendant to comply its terms. Cf. Ortolf v. Silver Bar Mines, 111

F.3d 85, 87 (9th Cir. 1997)

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendant Michael

Franklin is directed to comply with the settlement agreement on file

in this action. (See Doc. nos. 27 & 28.) Defendant shall comply 1

with the agreement forthwith. That is defendant shall pay plaintiff

$5,000, shall re-forest his lot as directed by plaintiff and shall

remove the vehicle therefrom. Defendant is forewarned that failure

to comply with this order may result in the imposition of sanctions,

including but not limited to an award for damages against defendant

for not complying with the settlement agreement. See TNT Mktg., Inc.

v. Agresti, 796 F.2d 276, 278 (9th Cir. 1986).

DATED: October 4, 2006.

DAD:th

DDad1\orders.prose\tahoeregional.enforce.settlement

Case 2:04-cv-00675-WBS-DAD Document 34 Filed 10/05/06 Page 4 of 4