Board of Trustees of The Pipe Trades District Council No. 36 Health and Welfare Trust Fund et al v. Clifton Enterprises Inc. et al

Filing 107

ORDER DENYING REQUEST TO RETAIN JURISDICTION OVER SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT re 104 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER TO DISMISS CLAIMS SUBJECT TO SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT. Signed by Judge Jon S. Tigar on June 17, 2013. (wsn, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/17/2013)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7
8

BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE PIPE
TRADES DISTRICT COUNCIL NO. 36
HEALTH AND WELFARE TRUST FUND,
et al.,
Plaintiffs,

9
10

v.

Case No. 11-cv-05447-JST
ORDER DENYING REQUEST TO
RETAIN JURISDICTION OVER
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
Re: Dkt. No. 104

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

CLIFTON ENTERPRISES INC., et al.,
Defendants.

13

Before the court is the stipulation between Plaintiffs and Defendant American Contractors

14

Indemnity Company (“ACIC”) dismissing Plaintiffs’ claims against ACIC without prejudice and

15

requesting that the court retain jurisdiction over the parties’ settlement agreement. ECF No. 104.

16

“[A] proceeding to enforce a settlement requires its own basis for jurisdiction, i.e., a

17

district court does not retain ‘inherent’ or ‘ancillary’ subject matter jurisdiction to enforce a

18

settlement simply because the dismissal of a federal action served as part of the consideration for

19

the settlement agreement.” Hagestad v. Tragesser, 49 F.3d 1430, 1433 (9th Cir. 1995) (citing

20

Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co., 511 U.S. 375 (1994)). Stipulations between the parties

21

requesting that courts retain jurisdiction do not alter this rule. “[I]t is well-established that

22

litigants cannot confer [subject matter] jurisdiction by consent where none exists.” United States

23

v. Judge, 944 F.2d 523, 525 (9th Cir. 1991), cert. den’d, 504 U.S. 927 (1992) (citing Insurance

24

Corp. of Ireland v. Compagnie des Bauxites, 456 U.S. 694, 701–02 (1982)). See also Collins v.

25

Thompson, 8 F.3d 657, 659 (9th Cir. 1993) ("A federal court may refuse to exercise continuing

26

jurisdiction even though the parties have agreed to it. Parties cannot confer jurisdiction by

27

stipulation or consent.").

28

Here, the circumstances that may justify departure from the preumption against continuing

1

jurisdiction are not present. Accordingly, the court DENIES the parties’ request that it retain

2

jurisdiction over the settlement agreement between Plaintiffs and ACIC.

3
4
5
6
7
8

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a) and the parties’ stipulation, Plaintiffs’
claims against ACIC are hereby DISMISSED without prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: June 17, 2013
______________________________________
JON S. TIGAR
United States District Judge

9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2