Lamon v. Adams et al

Filing 341

ORDER on Plaintiff's 338 Motion to Enforce Stipulation for Dismissal signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 5/1/2018. (Sant Agata, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

BARRY LAMON,

12

Plaintiff,

13

ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO
ENFORCE STIPULATION FOR DISMISSAL

v.

14

Case No. 1:09-cv-00205-JLT PC

ADAMS, et al.,

(Doc. 338)
15

Defendants

16
17

On March 17, 2016, the parties filed a fully executed stipulation for voluntary dismissal of

18 this action with prejudice. (Doc. 330.) The Court issued an order dismissing the action pursuant
19 to that stipulation the next day. (Doc. 331.) Over two years later, on April 9, 2018, Plaintiff filed
20 a motion to enforce the stipulation indicating that he had not received the monetary payment
21 agreed to under the stipulation. (Doc. 338.)
22

Defendants filed a response, attaching the executed stipulation and indicating that though

23 Plaintiff executed and returned all of the required paperwork to defense counsel, which was
24 relayed to the CDCR, for unbeknownst reasons, the payment has not been made. (Doc. 340.) On
25 April 11, 2018, upon confirmation that Plaintiff had not been paid, defense counsel resubmitted
26 the matter to the CDCR and requested expedited payment. (Id.) Defense counsel apologized on
27 behalf of the defendants, counsel, and the CDCR, but indicates that Plaintiff has not been
28 prejudiced by the delay since the $2,000 payment agreed to under the stipulation will be applied to

1

Plaintiff’s current restitution amount of approximately $16,000. (Id.)

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12

Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction; they possess only that power authorized by
Constitution and statute, and it is presumed that a cause lies outside this limited jurisdiction.
Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co., 511 U.S. 375, 378 (1994) (quotation marks and citations
omitted). The enforcement of a settlement agreement is more than just a continuation or renewal
of the dismissed suit and it requires its own basis for jurisdiction. Kokkonen, 511 U.S. at 378
(quotation marks omitted). A court may retain jurisdiction to enforce a settlement agreement, but
that retention must be express. Kokkonen, 511 U.S. at 378; Alvarado v. Table Mountain
Rancheria, 509 F.3d 1008, 1017 (9th Cir. 2007); Ortolf v. Silver Bar Mines, Inc., 111 F.3d 85, 8788 (9th Cir. 1997); Hagestad v. Tragesser, 49 F.3d 1430, 1433 (9th Cir. 1995). Furthermore, the
party seeking enforcement of the settlement agreement must allege a violation of the settlement
agreement in order to establish ancillary jurisdiction. Alvarado, 509 F.3d at 1017.

13

Plaintiff accurately alleges violation of the settlement agreement by the CDCR’s lack of

14

monetary payment1 under the terms of the stipulation. However, the settlement agreement and

15
16
17

release does not contain any indication, implied or express, that the parties intended this court to
retain enforcement jurisdiction. Thus, this Court lacks jurisdiction to enforce the settlement
entered in this action.2

18
19
20

Based on the foregoing, the Court ORDERS that Plaintiff’s motion to enforce the
settlement stipulation, filed on April 9, 2018 (Doc. 338), is DENIED for lack of jurisdiction. No
further filings will be accepted in this case.

21
22 IT IS SO ORDERED.
23

Dated:

May 1, 2018

/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

24
25
26
27
28

1

The Court notes that a number of property items were also involved in the settlement. (Doc. 340, pp. 5-9.)
However, Plaintiff does not contend that he did not receive the items promised under the stipulation. (See Doc. 338.)
2
However, the Court appreciates defense counsel’s response to Plaintiff’s motion and their request that payment be
expedited to Plaintiff’s inmate trust account to resolve this issue.

2