Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_12-cv-00244/USCOURTS-cand-3_12-cv-00244-10/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Yohonia M. Martin
Plaintiff
Wells Fargo Bank
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

YOHONIA M. MARTIN,

Plaintiff,

v.

WELLS FARGO BANK,

Defendant.

Case No. 12-cv-00244-MEJ 

ORDER RE: REQUEST FOR EXPERT 

SERVICES; ORDER FOR CLERK OF 

COURT TO RETURN FUTURE 

FILINGS

Re: Dkt. Nos. 50

This case was dismissed on February 11, 2013, pursuant to a settlement agreement 

between the parties. Dkt. No. 44. As part of the dismissal, the Court provided that “if any party 

hereto shall certify to this Court, within thirty days, with proof of service thereof, that the agreed 

consideration for said settlement has not been delivered over, the foregoing order shall stand 

vacated and this cause shall forthwith be restored to the calendar to be set for trial.” Id. No party 

filed any such notice. However, on May 11, 2015, more than two years after the Court dismissed 

this case, Plaintiff Yohonia Martin filed three documents entitled “Request and Authorization for 

Expert Services.” Dkt. No. 50. Plaintiff appears to seek reimbursement for costs she incurred in 

this lawsuit, including “conducting and obtaining researched documents and applicable 

information,” noting that she “paid all expenses out of pocket.” Id. However, with the exception 

of the thirty-day notice period noted above, the Court did not retain jurisdiction over disputes that 

arose after the parties agreed to settle this case. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s request must be denied. 

“Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. They possess only that power authorized 

by Constitution and statute. . . . It is to be presumed that a cause lies outside this limited 

jurisdiction, and the burden of establishing the contrary rests upon the party asserting jurisdiction.” 

Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994) (citations omitted). 

Case 3:12-cv-00244-MEJ Document 51 Filed 05/14/15 Page 1 of 3
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Enforcement of a settlement agreement “is more than just a continuation or renewal of the 

dismissed suit, and hence requires its own basis for jurisdiction.” Id. Thus, where a settlement 

agreement results in dismissal of an action and the Court has not retained jurisdiction as part of the 

dismissal, any subsequent issues that arise are considered “a claim for breach of a contract, part of 

the consideration for which was dismissal of an earlier federal suit.” Id. at 381 (“The facts to be 

determined with regard to such alleged breaches of contract are quite separate from the facts to be 

determined in the principal suit, and automatic jurisdiction over such contracts is in no way 

essential to the conduct of federal-court business.”).

Here, the Court did not expressly retain jurisdiction over the settlement agreement when it 

dismissed Plaintiff’s previous case nearly one year ago, nor did it incorporate any terms of the 

settlement into the Order. Accordingly, the Court is without jurisdiction to enforce the settlement 

agreement and any claims related to it. Any such claims must be brought in state court as a breach 

of contract claim. Kokkonen, 511 U.S. at 382 (Absent a request for the court to retain jurisdiction 

over the settlement contract, “enforcement of the settlement agreement is for state courts.”); see 

generally Hagestad v. Tragesser, 49 F.3d 1430 (9th Cir. 1995) (holding that the district court 

lacked jurisdiction to enforce settlement in a case in which the judge issued a conditional dismissal 

but did not expressly retain jurisdiction and did not incorporate the terms of the settlement into the 

dismissal, even though the judge orally indicated that he intended to oversee the settlement).

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s request for reimbursement is DENIED. Plaintiff is advised that 

the Court shall not accept any further filings in this matter. The Clerk of Court is directed not to 

file any documents received from Plaintiff Yohonia Martin and to instead return them to her.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 14, 2015

______________________________________

MARIA-ELENA JAMES

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:12-cv-00244-MEJ Document 51 Filed 05/14/15 Page 2 of 3
3

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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

YOHONIA M. MARTIN,

Plaintiff,

v.

WELLS FARGO BANK,

Defendant.

Case No. 12-cv-00244-MEJ 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. 

District Court, Northern District of California.

That on May 14, 2015, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by placing 

said copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by 

depositing said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery 

receptacle located in the Clerk's office.

Yohonia M. Martin

Womens Correctional Center

1590 Maple Street

#1163324

Redwood City, CA 94063 

Yohonia Martin

2686 Spring St

Redwood City CA 94063

Dated: May 14, 2015

Richard W. Wieking

Clerk, United States District Court

By:________________________

Chris Nathan, Deputy Clerk to the 

Honorable MARIA-ELENA JAMES

Case 3:12-cv-00244-MEJ Document 51 Filed 05/14/15 Page 3 of 3