Johnson v. The Open Window Project, LLC

Filing 31

ORDER signed by District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 7/25/18, DENYING Plaintiff's 28 Motion to Enforce the Parties' Settlement Agreement. (Kastilahn, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

SCOTT JOHNSON,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14
15

No. 2:16-cv-01619-KJM-EFB

v.

ORDER

THE OPEN WINDOW PROJECT, LLC, et
al.,
Defendants.

16
17

After the court closed this case, plaintiff filed a motion to enforce the parties’

18
19

settlement agreement. Because the court lacks jurisdiction to hear plaintiff’s motion, the motion

20

is DENIED.

21

I.

22

BACKGROUND
Plaintiff Scott Johnson, a level C-5 quadriplegic, sued defendant The Open

23

Window Project, LLC, alleging Open Window violated the Americans with Disabilities Act and

24

the California Unruh Civil Rights Act. See Compl., ECF No. 1. Specifically, Johnson alleged

25

Open Window’s property, 510 E. Miner Avenue, Stockton, California, had no parking spaces that

26

were marked and reserved for persons with disabilities, forcing Johnson to either park in a non-

27

disabled spot or leave. Id. at 3-4. Johnson sought injunctive relief, damages, attorney fees,

28

litigation expenses and costs. Id. at 8.
1

1

After Open Window filed its answer, ECF No. 5, the court ordered the parties to

2

exhaust settlement efforts and file a joint status report every 60 days, ECF No. 6. Johnson joined

3

in one status report, ECF No. 7, and, according to Open Window, declined to join the next, ECF

4

No. 9. The court then ordered Johnson to show cause why sanctions should not issue for failure

5

to comply with the court’s orders, including possible dismissal for failure to prosecute. ECF No.

6

10. Johnson filed a status report but did not acknowledge or respond to the order to show cause.

7

See ECF No. 11. The court then held a pretrial scheduling conference and extended Johnson’s

8

counsel’s deadline to respond to the pending order to show cause. ECF No. 16. Johnson’s

9

counsel responded, ECF No. 17, and the court discharged the order to show cause, ECF No. 18.

10

On February 8, 2018, the parties filed a joint notice of settlement. ECF No. 24.

11

They advised that they had reached “a global settlement” and expected to file a stipulated

12

dismissal with prejudice in 60 days. Id. at 2. The parties requested the court schedule a “Status

13

Conference/OSC Hearing” to be held within sixty days “at which the Parties, by and through their

14

attorneys of record shall show cause why this case has not been dismissed.” Id. The court

15

vacated all deadlines and set a “FIRM” April 9, 2018 deadline for the parties to file dispositional

16

documents. ECF No. 25. At the parties’ request, the court also set an April 26, 2018 status

17

conference at which, in the event dispositional documents were not yet filed, the parties would

18

“be ordered to show cause why the case should not be dismissed.” Id.

19

On April 26, 2018, with no dispositional documents filed, the court held a status

20

conference. ECF No. 26. Open Window’s counsel appeared. Id. Johnson’s counsel, without

21

explanation, did not. Id. Open Window’s counsel confirmed the parties signed a settlement

22

agreement, the financial component of which had not yet been fulfilled. Id. The court advised

23

Open Window’s counsel that it would review the case to determine whether it should be closed.

24

Id. The court included this advisement in the hearing minutes, which were served on all parties.

25

Id. Johnson did not respond. Two weeks later, on May 10, 2018, after reviewing the case history

26

and the parties’ representations, and taking into account Johnson’s silence, the court issued a

27

minute order finding “this case has settled and no further court action is necessary. This case is

28

DISMISSED and CLOSED.” ECF No. 27. Nearly two weeks later, on May 22, 2018, Johnson
2

1

filed a motion to enforce settlement. Mot. ECF No. 28. Open Window filed a statement of non-

2

opposition. ECF No. 29. The court submitted the motion without oral argument, ECF No. 30,

3

and resolves it here.

4

II.

5

LEGAL STANDARD
Enforcing a settlement agreement is “more than just a continuation or renewal of

6

the dismissed suit, and hence requires its own basis for jurisdiction.” Kokkonen v. Guardian Life

7

Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 378 (1994). Following dismissal, a district court lacks jurisdiction

8

to enforce a settlement agreement unless the court (1) expressly retains jurisdiction over the

9

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

10

agreement in the dismissal order. Id. at 381. Under either circumstance, breaching the agreement

11

violates a court order and therefore provides the court with ancillary jurisdiction to enforce the

12

agreement. Id. Absent such circumstances, a party seeking to remedy the breach must initiate a

13

new lawsuit to enforce the contract. Id.

14

III.

15

DISCUSSION
Johnson requests this court enforce the parties’ settlement agreement, but does not

16

address whether this court has jurisdiction to do so. It does not. The court’s dismissal order

17

referred to the parties’ settlement agreement but did not retain jurisdiction to enforce it or

18

incorporate the parties’ obligation to comply with its terms such that the breach alleged here

19

“flout[s] or imperil[s]” the court’s order. See Kokkonen, 511 U.S. 375, 380 (1994); see id. at 381

20

(“The judge’s mere awareness and approval of the terms of the settlement agreement do not

21

suffice to make them part of his order.”); see also In re Valdez Fisheries Dev. Ass’n, Inc., 439

22

F.3d 545, 549 (9th Cir. 2006) (finding bankruptcy court’s dismissal order, which stated, “[t]he

23

conditions of the settlement hav[e] been fulfilled[,]” did not incorporate “the parties’ obligations

24

to comply with [the agreement’s] terms”) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted).

25

Johnson repeatedly disregarded this court’s orders, then expressly requested the court order him

26

to show cause for not dismissing the case but never responded when the court advised it was

27

/////

28

/////
3

1

considering dismissal, and now, only after dismissal, moves the court for relief. His claim is for

2

breach of contract and his remedy, if any, must be provided by the state courts. The motion is

3

DENIED.

4
5

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: July 25, 2018.

6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4