Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-01304/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-01304-8/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Chris Keller
Defendant
Dawn Keller
Defendant
Tri-Dam
Plaintiff

Document Text:

1

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TRI-DAM, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

CHRIS KELLER AND DAWN 

KELLER, 

Defendant. 

__________________________________/

1:11-cv-1304-AWI-SMS

ORDER DISMISSING ACTION AND 

CLOSING CASE

On June 3, 2015, this Court ordered Tri-Dam to either file dispositional documents or “a 

status update, apprising the Court of any remaining obstacles to closure of this case” by July 15, 

2015. On July 15, Tri-Dam filed a status update contending that Defendants were in breach of 

the settlement agreement executed between the parties because they had failed to submit a permit 

application for a new structure that was complaint with Tri-Dam’s shoreline management plan 

(“SMP”). Doc. 68 at 2. However, at that time, Tri-Dam had still not provided the Court with a 

copy of that agreement. Rather than seek to litigate the alleged breach, Tri-Dam sought an 

extension of time until September 15, 2015, to file dispositional documents. The Court granted 

that request. 

On September 15, 2015, both parties submitted status updates. Docs. 72, 73. Tri-Dam 

now complains that Defendants failed to sign a stipulation for dismissal as provided by the 

settlement agreement – both the proposed stipulation and the settlement agreement are attached

Case 1:11-cv-01304-AWI-SMS Document 74 Filed 09/30/15 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

to that status update. Doc. 72. Defendants complain that Tri-Dam failed to comply with the 

settlement agreement when it did not dismiss within 15 days of removal of the improvement 

which have been the subject of this litigation. Doc. 73. Defendants also take issue with TriDam’s request that the Court retain jurisdiction over this matter to enforce any breach of the 

settlement agreement; Defendants contend that “the [settlement agreement] does not contemplate 

continuing jurisdiction.” Doc. 73 at 2. Defendants are simply mistaken. In fact, in Section 16 of 

the settlement agreement – entitled “continuing jurisdiction and enforcement” – the parties 

specifically agreed to permit the court to “retain jurisdiction [over] the action to settle any 

disputes resulting from the [settlement] agreement.” Doc. 72 at 10.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2) provides that an action may be dismissed at a 

plaintiff’s request and without a stipulation, on terms that the court considers proper. A court 

“should grant a motion for voluntary dismissal under Rule 41(a)(2) unless a defendant can show 

that it will suffer some plain legal prejudice as a result.” Smith v. Lenches, 263 F.3d 972, 975 

(9th Cir.2001). “The Court must determine ‘(1) whether to allow dismissal; (2) whether the 

dismissal should be with or without prejudice; and (3) what terms and conditions, if any, should 

be imposed.’” JPMorgan Chase Bank v. Sierra Pac. Mortg. Co., Inc., 2015 WL 5092802, *1 

(E.D. Cal. Aug. 28, 2015) (citation omitted).

Although the parties each contend that the other is in breach of the settlement agreement, 

they both agree that this case should be dismissed. The Court agrees that this action should be 

dismissed. The parties’ settlement agreement requires removal of all improvements and contains 

a continuing agreement that Defendants comply with all Tri-Dam permitting requirements in the 

future. The improvements on the reservoir have been removed. Defendants have constructed no 

new improvements on the reservoir. There is no reason that this action should remain before the 

Court. Plaintiff’s motion to dismiss will be granted.

The Court has the authority to exercise continuing jurisdiction to enforce settlement 

agreements entered before the Court. See, e.g., Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 

U.S. 375, 381 (1995); Torres v. Pet Extreme, 2015 WL 224752, * (E.D. Cal. Jan. 15, 2015);

Case 1:11-cv-01304-AWI-SMS Document 74 Filed 09/30/15 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

Franco v. Ruiz Food Products, Inc., 2012 WL 5941801, *25 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 27, 2012). 

However, “[a] federal court may [also] refuse to exercise continuing jurisdiction even though the 

parties have agreed to it.” Collins v. Thompson, 8 F.3d 657, 659 (9th Cir. 1993). Parties cannot 

confer jurisdiction by stipulation or consent. Id. (citing, inter alia, California v. La Rue, 409 U.S. 

109, 112–13 n. 3 (1972)). A Court should exercise continuing jurisdiction where an independent 

basis for jurisdiction over the continent settlement agreement exists. See Collins, 8 F.3d at 659.

Erection of an unauthorized improvement upon the reservoir was the original underlying 

factual basis for jurisdiction. That same conduct is precluded by the settlement agreement. 

Accordingly the conduct that that would violate the settlement agreement would likely also 

provide an independent basis for federal jurisdiction. As a result, the Court will exercise 

continuing jurisdiction in this instance.

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

1. Tri-Dam’s motion to dismiss is GRANTED pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2);

2. The Court will exercise continuing jurisdiction to enforce the terms of the parties’ 

settlement agreement;

3. The Clerk of the Court is respectfully directed to close this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 29, 2015 

 SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:11-cv-01304-AWI-SMS Document 74 Filed 09/30/15 Page 3 of 3