Koch v. Sacramento County et al
Filing
31
FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 12/02/19 RECOMMENDING that plaintiff's 06/19/19 motion to enforce the terms of a settlement agreement be denied. Motion 26 referred to Judge John A. Mendez. Objections due within 14 days. (Plummer, M)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
ROLAND THOMAS KOCH,
12
13
14
15
No. 2:15-cv-0739 JAM CKD P
Plaintiff,
v.
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
SACRAMENTO COUNTY, et al.,
Defendants.
16
17
On September 1, 2016, plaintiff and the only remaining defendant, Sacramento County
18
Sheriff Scott Jones sued in his official capacity, filed a stipulation of dismissal pursuant to Rule
19
41(a)(1)(A)(ii) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The court was informed that the parties
20
had reached a settlement agreement, but terms of settlement were not disclosed.
21
On June 19, 2019, plaintiff filed a motion asking that “the court review and intercede in
22
enforcing the settlement agreement reached.” As the court was never made aware of the terms of
23
settlement and was never asked to retain jurisdiction over the settlement agreement before the
24
stipulation of dismissal was entered, the court does not have the authority to enter the order
25
sought. See Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of America, 511 U.S. 375, 381-82 (1994) (court
26
does not have authority to attach conditions to a parties’ stipulation of dismissal). Enforcement of
27
the agreement is a matter of California contract law over which this court does not, by itself, have
28
jurisdiction. See id.
1
1
2
In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that plaintiff’s June 19,
2019 motion to enforce the terms of a settlement agreement be denied.
3
These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge
4
assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days
5
after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written
6
objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned
7
“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any response to the
8
objections shall be served and filed within fourteen days after service of the objections. The
9
parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to
10
appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).
11
Dated: December 2, 2019
_____________________________________
CAROLYN K. DELANEY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
12
13
14
15
16
1koch0739.mte
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?