Baker v. Gipson et al

Filing 88

ORDER DENYING 86 Motion to Enforce Settlement and for Sanctions signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 11/9/2016. (Jessen, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

ROBERT G. BAKER,

11

Plaintiff,

12

v.

13
14
15
16

Case No. 1: 13-cv-01931-MJS (PC)
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO
ENFORCE SETTLEMENT AND FOR
SANCTIONS
(ECF No. 86)

CONNIE GIPSON, et al.,
Defendants.
Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in a civil

17 rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The action, now closed, proceeded
18 against Defendant Kitt on Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claim for inadequate medical
19 care. The parties consented to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction for all purposes pursuant to
20 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).
21

A settlement conference was held on August 22, 2016, and the matter settled.

22 (ECF Nos. 82, 83.) The matter was dismissed with prejudice pursuant to the parties’
23 stipulation, and the case was closed. (ECF Nos. 84, 85.)
24

Before the Court is Plaintiff’s October 26, 2016 motion to effectuate the

25 settlement and to sanction Defendant for breach of the settlement agreement. (ECF No.
26 86.) Defendant filed a response. (ECF No. 87.) Plaintiff filed no reply. The matter is
27 deemed submitted. Local Rule 230(l).
28

1

I.

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15

In Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of America, 511 U.S. 375 (1994), the
Supreme Court considered the jurisdiction of federal courts to enforce settlement
agreements. The Court held that once parties to a lawsuit have settled and the District
Court has dismissed the case, the District Court does not have ancillary jurisdiction to
enforce the parties’ settlement agreement. Id. at 379-81. Ancillary jurisdiction to enforce
a settlement agreement may arise if the “parties’ obligation to comply with the terms of
the settlement agreement had been made part of the order of dismissal – either by [a]
separate provision (such as a provision “retaining jurisdiction” over the settlement
agreement) or by incorporating the terms of the settlement agreement in the order.” Id.
at 381; Hagestad v. Tragesser, 49 F.3d 1430, 1433 (9th Cir. 1995) (quoting Kokkonen,
511 U.S. at 381). Such specific language confers the requisite jurisdiction because a
breach of the agreement thereby violates the order. Kokkonen, 511 U.S. at 381. Absent
such language or an independent basis for jurisdiction, the enforcement of a settlement
agreement is for the state courts. Id. at 382.

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Legal Standard

To the extent that Plaintiff's motion can be construed as a request brought
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6), the Ninth Circuit has held that the
repudiation or “complete frustration” of a settlement agreement can be grounds to set
aside a judgment. See Keeling v. Sheet Metal Workers Int'l, 937 F.2d 408, 410 (9th Cir.
1991); see also Kokkonen, 511 U.S. at 378 (distinguishing enforcement of a settlement
agreement from reopening a dismissed suit because of breach of the agreement that
was the basis for dismissal).
II.

Parties’ Arguments
It appears that part of Plaintiff’s motion is missing, as the motion itself cuts off

mid-sentence. In the portion of the motion filed with the Court, Plaintiff claims that,
pursuant to the settlement agreement, Defendant had forty five days to provide the
agreed-upon settlement funds to Plaintiff. No such funds were received as of the date of
2

1

filing.

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12

Defendant responds that he had forty five days following receipt of an executed
release and request for dismissal in which to send the settlement funds to Plaintiff. He
received the executed documents on September 6, 2016, and therefore had until
October 21, 2016 to distribute the funds to Plaintiff. The settlement agreement
specifically provided that the funds would be sent to the California Department of
Corrections and Rehabilitation Accounting Department for distribution to Plaintiff’s
prison trust account. The funds were sent to the accounting Department on October 10,
2016. Pursuant to the return receipt received by Defendant, the Accounting Department
received the funds on October 14, 2016. Defense counsel also spoke with Christyne
Mills in the Accounting Department to confirm receipt.
III.

13
14

The Court did not retain jurisdiction to enforce the parties’ settlement agreement.
(See ECF Nos.84, 85.) Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion must be denied.

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

Discussion

Nor does Plaintiff show grounds for relief under Rule 60(b)(6) as it appears his
request is without merit. Defendant submits evidence to show that he has complied with
the settlement agreement. Plaintiff provides no evidence or argument to the contrary.
Nothing before the Court reflects frustration of the settlement agreement or any basis
for sanction.
IV.

Conclusion and Order
Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s motion to enforce the settlement agreement

and for sanctions is HEREBY DENIED.

23
24 IT IS SO ORDERED.
25
26

Dated:

November 9, 2016

/s/

Michael J. Seng

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
27
28

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

4