Alcaraz v. KMF Oakland LLC

Filing 160

ORDER DENYING APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER denying 158 Ex Parte Application 158 First Ex Parte Application for TRO/OSC. (Illston, Susan) (Filed on 7/14/2023)Any non-CM/ECF Participants have been served by First Class Mail to the addresses of record listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3
4

BERNARDO ALCARAZ,
Plaintiff,

5
v.

6
7

Case No. 18-cv-02801-SI

ALTEZZA CONDO LLC,
Defendant.

8

ORDER DENYING APPLICATION
FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING
ORDER
Re: Dkt. No. 158

United States District Court
Northern District of California

9
10

On July 12, 2023, plaintiff Bernardo Alcaraz, acting pro se, filed an ex parte application for

11

a temporary restraining order to restrain defendant Altezza Condo LLC from moving forward with

12

eviction proceedings against him. Dkt. No. 158. The Court held a hearing on the matter on July 14,

13

2023. Present at the hearing were Mr. Alcaraz; counsel for defendant; and one of Mr. Alcaraz’s

14

former pro bono attorneys, who is no longer with the firm that represented him. For the reasons

15

stated at the hearing, the Court DENIES Mr. Alcaraz’s application for a TRO.

16
BACKGROUND

17
18

Mr. Alcaraz states that defendant never followed through with selling him the subject

19

property (in which he lives), which was a term of the parties’ settlement agreement in January 2021.

20

Mr. Alcaraz states that under the settlement agreement escrow was slated to close on March 8, 2021,

21

but that he did not receive the closing documents from the title company until March 11, 2021. On

22

March 12, 2021, defense counsel emailed Mr. Alcaraz to state that Mr. Alcaraz was in breach of the

23

settlement agreement, that defendant would not sell the unit to him, and that he needed to vacate the

24

premises immediately. Defendant disputes Mr. Alcaraz’s version of events, though neither party

25

disputes that Mr. Alcaraz did not deposit the funds into escrow at any point in March 2021 or

26

thereafter.

27

In his TRO papers, Mr. Alcaraz states that he intends to file a noticed motion to enforce the

28

settlement agreement. Mr. Alcaraz did not seek the assistance of this Court or of his former pro

1

bono counsel in March 2021 when the settlement apparently fell apart.1 He did not contact the Court

2

regarding the settlement or the eviction threat until this week.

3
DISCUSSION

United States District Court
Northern District of California

4
5

As explained at the hearing, the Court is without jurisdiction to grant Mr. Alcaraz the relief

6

he requests. On January 28, 2021, the parties filed a stipulation of voluntary dismissal with prejudice

7

of plaintiff’s claims against defendant, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a). Dkt. No.

8

153. The Court signed off on the stipulation the following day. Dkt. No. 154. The stipulation does

9

not retain the Court’s jurisdiction to enforce the terms of the settlement agreement.

10

The Supreme Court has held that in situations such as these, the federal court is without

11

jurisdiction: “enforcement of the settlement agreement is for state courts, unless there is some

12

independent basis for federal jurisdiction.” See Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511

13

U.S. 375, 382 (1994). The current suit “involves a claim for breach of a contract, part of the

14

consideration for which was dismissal of an earlier federal suit. No federal statute makes that

15

connection (if it constitutionally could) the basis for federal-court jurisdiction over the contract

16

dispute.” See id. at 381. Absent the Court’s retention of jurisdiction over the settlement contract or

17

incorporation of the settlement contract into the dismissal order, which did not occur here, the Court

18

is without jurisdiction to resolve the present dispute. See id. at 381-82.

19
20
21
22

Mr. Alcaraz must seek relief by filing a new lawsuit in state court, or in federal court if there
is an independent basis for jurisdiction, such as diversity jurisdiction.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: July 14, 2023
______________________________________
SUSAN ILLSTON
United States District Judge

23
24
25
26
27
28

1

Pro bono counsel stated that their representation terminated in January 2021 once the
parties had settled.
2