Willis v. Lappin et al

Filing 78

FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS Recommending that Plaintiff's 66 Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement be Denied for Lack of Jurisdiction; Objections, if any, Due within Thirty Days signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 1/14/2014. Referred to Judge Anthony W. Ishii. Objections to F&R due by 2/18/2014. (Sant Agata, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

JAMES R. WILLIS,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

1:09-cv-01703-AWI-GSA-PC
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS,
RECOMMENDING THAT PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION TO ENFORCE SETTLEMENT
AGREEMENT BE DENIED FOR LACK OF
JURISDICTION
(Doc. 66.)

vs.
DEVERE,

15

Defendant.

OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE WITHIN
THIRTY DAYS

16
17
18

I.

BACKGROUND

19

James R. Willis (APlaintiff@) is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights

20

action pursuant to Bivens vs. Six Unknown Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). Plaintiff filed this

21

case on September 28, 2009. (Doc. 1.) This case proceeded on Plaintiff’s Third Amended

22

Complaint, filed on July 8, 2011, against defendant Devere (“Defendant”) for failure to protect

23

Plaintiff in violation of the Eighth Amendment.1 (Doc. 24.) On May 20, 2013, the court

24

dismissed this action with prejudice, pursuant to the parties’ Stipulation for Dismissal and Rule

25

41(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (Doc. 64.)

26

///

27
28

1

On March 19, 2013, the court granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss, dismissing all other claims and
defendants from this action. (Doc. 60.)
1

1

On July 22, 2013, Plaintiff filed an Expedited Motion to Enforce Settlement. (Doc. 66.)

2

On August 6, 2013, Defendant filed an opposition to the motion. (Doc. 68.) On August 26,

3

2013, Plaintiff filed a reply to the opposition. (Doc. 71.) Plaintiff’s motion is now before the

4

court.

5

II.

MOTION FOR ENFORCEMENT OF SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
Plaintiff’s Position

6

A.

7

Plaintiff requests an expedited court order, either enforcing the parties’ settlement

8

agreement (“Agreement”), allowing a stipulated amendment to the Agreement, or voiding the

9

Agreement. Plaintiff contends that the court maintains jurisdiction to enforce the Agreement.

10

Plaintiff argues that the Agreement, in which Defendant agreed to pay Plaintiff the sum

11

of $3,000.00 in exchange for Plaintiff’s dismissal of the case with prejudice, was breached or

12

should be voided because on June 10, 2013, he received a motion from the U.S. Attorney in the

13

Western District of Texas for a court order directing the federal Bureau of Prisons to turn over

14

Plaintiff’s $3,000.00 award for payment of Plaintiff’s restitution. Plaintiff argues that the U.S.

15

Attorney who negotiated the Agreement with Plaintiff made misleading comments during the

16

telephonic settlement conference that led Plaintiff to believe the $3,000.00 was his money,

17

“clear and free.” (Motion, Doc. 66 at 92 ¶E.)
Defendant’s Position

18

B.

19

Defendant argues that the court lacks jurisdiction to re-write the Agreement, because

20

the court’s power to approve or reject settlements does not permit it to modify the terms of a

21

negotiated settlement.

22

Defendant also argues that Plaintiff is precluded from claiming that statements made

23

during negotiations were misleading, because the Agreement expressly advised Plaintiff that

24

“no warranties, representations, promises, and/or assurances of any types” were made during

25

negotiations, and Plaintiff agreed in writing. (Opp’n, Doc. 68 at 5:12-15.)

26
27
2

28

Pagination is based on the Court’s electronic court filing system (ECF). When the party’s pagination on a
document differs from the pagination used by ECF, the Court uses the pagination used by ECF.

2

1

Defendant also argues that the evidence shows nothing more than Plaintiff’s unilateral

2

mistake of fact and no undue influence, because there was no discussion of restitution, and no

3

reasonable person would interpret paragraph 11 of the Agreement to mean that the “settlement

4

[was] exempt from any other execution other than for taxes.” (Opp’n at 6:2-4.)

5

In addition, Defendant argues that Plaintiff’s motion constitutes a collateral attack on

6

the turnover order made by the Western District of Texas, and his remedy is in the Western

7

District of Texas.

8

C.

9

Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, possessing only that power authorized

10

by Constitution and statute. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Insurance Co., 511 U.S. 375, 377, 114

11

S.Ct. 1673, 128 L.Ed.2d 391 (1994.) A claim for breach of contract or a settlement agreement,

12

even if part of the consideration for it is dismissal of a federal case, will not provide the basis

13

for federal court jurisdiction. Id. at 381. This limited jurisdiction cannot be expanded by

14

judicial decree. Id. at 377 (citing American Fire & Casualty Co. v. Finn, 341 U.S. 6, 17-18, 71

15

S.Ct. 534, 95 L.Ed. 702 (1951)). Lack of jurisdiction is to be presumed and the burden of

16

proving jurisdiction rests with the party asserting jurisdiction. Kokkonen, 511 U.S. at 377.

Discussion

17

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

18

dismissed suit, and hence requires its own basis for jurisdiction.” Id. at 378. A district court

19

lacks jurisdiction to enforce a settlement agreement following a dismissal of the action unless

20

the district judge either: (1) expressly in the dismissal order, retains jurisdiction over the

21

settlement agreement; or (2) incorporates the terms of the settlement agreement in the dismissal

22

order. See id. at 381. Under those circumstances, a breach of the agreement would be a

23

violation of a court order and the district court would have ancillary jurisdiction to enforce the

24

agreement. Id. Absent those circumstances, however, remedying any breach of the settlement

25

agreement requires initiation of a new lawsuit to enforce the contract. If the court does not

26

retain jurisdiction to enforce the settlement agreement, the vehicle for the enforcement of the

27

settlement agreement is a breach of contract claim in another proceeding, where “part of the

28

consideration [for the contract] was dismissal of an earlier federal suit.” Id.
3

1

Here, the parties filed a Stipulation for Dismissal with prejudice, pursuant to Federal

2

Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). (Doc. 63.) All of the parties signed the Stipulation,

3

and the court entered an order approving the Stipulation, dismissing the case with prejudice.

4

(Id.; Doc. 64.)

5

settlement agreement or incorporate the terms of the settlement agreement in the dismissal

6

order.

The district judge did not expressly retain jurisdiction over the parties’

7

The Agreement itself contains one provision regarding the court’s retention of

8

jurisdiction. It states: “The parties further agree that a Stipulation of Dismissal with Prejudice

9

shall be filed upon execution of this Stipulation for Compromise, with the Court to retain

10

jurisdiction to enforce the agreement.” (Settlement Agreement, Exh. 3 to Motion, Doc. 66 at

11

32 ¶12.) However, the Stipulation for Dismissal and Order signed by the district judge and

12

filed in this case does not contain any provisions regarding the court’s retention of jurisdiction,

13

and “neither the Rule nor any provision of law provides for jurisdiction of the court over

14

disputes arising out of an agreement that produces the stipulation.” Id. at 378. Therefore, any

15

further enforcement of the Agreement is a matter for state court, and Plaintiff’s motion to

16

enforce the settlement must be denied for lack of jurisdiction.

17

III.

CONCLUSION

18

Based on the foregoing, THE COURT HEREBY RECOMMENDS that Plaintiff’s

19

Expedited Motion to Enforce Settlement, filed on July 22, 2013, be DENIED for lack of

20

jurisdiction.

21

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge

22

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. ' 636(b)(l). Within thirty

23

days after being served with these findings and recommendations, the parties may file written

24

objections with the court. Such a document should be captioned "Objections to Magistrate

25

Judge's Findings and Recommendations." Any reply to the objections shall be served and filed

26

within ten days after service of the objections. The parties are advised that failure to file

27

///

28

///
4

1

objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court's order.

2

Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

3
4
5
6

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

7
8
9

January 14, 2014

/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

DEAC_Signature-END:

6i0kij8d

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5