The Orchard Enterprises, Inc. v. TufAmerica, Inc.

Filing 67

ORDER signed by Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr on 09/15/09 DENYING 54 Motion To Enforce Settlement Agreement and 58 Motion To Enforce Settlement Agreement; and DENYING 66 Motion to Rescind and Seal Settlement Agreement. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED and the Clerk shall close this action. CASE CLOSED. (Streeter, J)

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 These matters were determined suitable for decision without oral argument. E.D. Cal. R. 78-230(h). 1
*

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ORCHARD ENTERPRISES, INC., Plaintiff, v. TUFAMERICA, INC., Defendant.

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

2:08-cv-00553-GEB-EFB ORDER*

On August 12, 2009, Plaintiff filed a motion to enforce the settlement agreement attached as an exhibit to its motion. hearing on the motion is scheduled for September 28, 2009. The On

September 11, 2009, Defendant filed a related-motion to seal and rescind this settlement agreement. However, since Defendant has not

sufficiently explained why this settlement agreement should be sealed after it has been on the public docket for approximately four weeks, this portion of Defendant's motion is denied. The parties' dispute concerning whether their settlement

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

agreement should be enforced or rescinded has not been shown to be within the subject matter jurisdiction of the federal court. "Enforcement of a settlement agreement is essentially an action for breach of contract, which is governed by state and not federal law." Columbia Gas Transmission Corp. v. Ashleigh Heights LLC, 261 F.Supp.2d 332, 333 (D. Md. 2002). Further, whether the settlement agreement A federal court does

should be rescinded is governed by state law.

not have jurisdiction over a settlement dispute just because the dispute concerns a settlement of claims over which federal subject matter jurisdiction existed. O'Connor v. Colvin, 70 F.3d 530, 532

(9th Cir. 1995) (stating the parties are required to allege facts showing subject matter jurisdiction exists over their "settlement dispute"); Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of America, 511 U.S. 375, 378 (1994) (stating "[e]nforcemment of [a] settlement agreement . . . whether through award of damages or decree of specific performance . . . requires its own basis for jurisdiction"). Since it

has not been shown that federal subject matter jurisdiction exists over the settlement disputes at issue, this action is dismissed and the Clerk of the Court shall close the action. Dated: September 15, 2009

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR. United States District Judge

2