* Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be

published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule

47.5.4. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-50744

Summary Calendar

IN THE MATTER OF JOSE MARIA GUARDIA LOPEZ,

JOSE MARIA GUARDIA LOPEZ,

Appellant,

versus

BRUCE DUNCAN,

Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

(EP-96-CA-137)

June 3, 1997

Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, JONES and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

POLITZ, Chief Judge: *

Jose Maria Guardia Lopez appeals the district court’s order affirming the

bankruptcy court’s enforcement of an arbitration award and asse ssment of a fine2

for civil contempt. For the reasons assigned, we affirm.

BACKGROUND

Guardia owned Cesta Punta Deportes, Inc., whose parent company operated

a dog track and gol f course in Mexico. Bruce Duncan owned Juarez Racetrack

Golf Complex, Inc., which contracted with Cesta Punta to build a driving range and

b ar, make improvements to the golf course, and manage the golf comp lex.

Dissatisfied with JRGCI’s performance, Guardia canceled the contract and evicted

JRGCI.

In April 1995 Guardia, in his indi vidual capacity, filed a chapter 11

bankruptcy petition. Duncan, in his individual capacity and as president of JRGCI,

filed a proof of claim for $795,7 59.44 based upon the canceled agreement. On

September 8, 1995 Guardia filed a motion to dismiss his bankruptcy case. Duncan

opposed same. The bankruptcy court held a hearing on the motion on September

20, 1995 at which Guardia and Duncan rea ched a settlement agreement. The

bankruptcy judge entered an order of dismissa l based upon the terms and conditions

of the settlement agreement, which provided inter alia that: (1) Guardia would be

personally liable to Duncan on the canceled contract; (2) the amount of Guardia’s

personal liability to Duncan would be determined in binding arbitration; (3)

Duncan would be reimbursed for his actual i n vestment in the golf complex1 Since the filing of this appeal the arbitration award has been satisfied by Duncan’s

foreclosure on Guardia’s home in El Paso, Texas. The satisfaction of the award does not

a ffect our disposition of Guardia’s appeal and we accordingly reject Duncan’ s motion to

dismiss the case as moot.

3 regardless of the reasonablenes s of his expenses; and (4) the bankruptcy court

would retain jurisdiction to enforce the terms of the dismissal order.

The arbitration occurred on December 20 and 21, 1995 and the arbitrator

awarded Duncan $314,019.48. Guardia did not pay the award within the time

provided in the dismissal order, and on January 9, 1996 Duncan moved the

bankruptcy court to compel compliance. The bankruptcy court held a hearing the

next day in the absence of Guardia and ruled that he had 20 days in which to pay

the arbitral award. Guardia subsequently moved to set aside the award. The

bankruptcy court denied that motio n. When Guardia did not comply within 20

days, the bankruptcy cour t entered final judgment ordering Guardia to pay the

arbitration award and imposed an assessment of $314,769.48 for civil contempt. 1

Guardia filed several motions for reconsideration, all of which the

bankruptcy court denied. Guardia appealed to the district court, which affirmed all

orders and judgments of the bankruptcy court. Guardia timely appealed the district

court’s decision.

ANALYSIS2 See Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of America

, 114 S.Ct. 1673 (1994)

(explaining that federal court may by specific provision retain jurisdictio n over the

enforcement of a settlement agreement that has been incorporated into a dismissal order).

3 See Insurance Corp. of Ireland v. Compagnie des Bauxites de Guinea

, 456 U.S. 694

(1982) (explaining that parties cannot confer subject matter jurisdiction upon a federal court

and, therefore, that consent of parties is irrelevant).

4 Guardia contends that the bankruptcy co urt lacked subject matter jurisdiction

to enforce the arbitration award because the underlying contract dispute between

Cesta Punta and JRGCI was unrelated to Guardia’s individual chapter 11 filing.

That contention is wholly without merit. It is undisputed that the bankruptcy court

had jurisdiction over Guardia’s individual chapter 11 proceedings. The bankruptcy

court dismissed Gua rdia’s case under the terms and conditions of the dismissal

order. As part of those terms and conditions Guardia assumed personal liability for

the canceled agreement in an amount to be determined in arbitration. Because the

bankruptcy court explicitly retained jurisdiction to enforce the dismissal order, it

had jurisdiction to compel Guardia to pay the arbitration award. 2

Contrary to Guardia’s assertion, we are not endorsing the obviously incorrect

proposition that the parties may by consent confer subject matter jurisdiction upon

a federal court. 3 The parties did not attempt to confer jurisdiction on the

bankruptcy court. Rather, jurisdiction was automatically conferred on the court

when Guardia filed his original bankruptcy petition. The settlement agreement5

merely resolved that Duncan’s proof of claim, which he filed both as an individual

and as president of JRGCI, was within the scope of Guardia’s personal bankruptcy.

Guardia urges several other assignments of error, none of which has any

merit. These properly were disposed of by the district court in its Order signed

September 6, 1996.

The judgment appealed is AFFIRMED.