Whitaker v. Cyclismo Cafe Redwood City LLC

Filing 41

ORDER by Judge Seeborg denying 40 Ex Parte Application for Entry of Stipulated Judgment. (rslc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/17/2023)

Download PDF
Case 3:21-cv-03626-RS Document 41 Filed 01/17/23 Page 1 of 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 BRIAN WHITAKER, Case No. 21-cv-03626-RS Plaintiff, 11 United States District Court Northern District of California v. ORDER DENYING APPLICATION TO ENTER JUDGMENT 12 13 CYCLISMO CAFE REDWOOD CITY LLC, 14 Defendant. 15 16 This action was terminated in February of 2022, when plaintiff filed a written notice that 17 he was voluntarily dismissing it with prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 18 41(a)(1)(A)(i). Plaintiff requested no order from the court to effect the dismissal, instead expressly 19 invoking his right to dismiss without an order because no answer or motion for summary judgment 20 had been filed. Although the parties’ written settlement agreement apparently contemplated that 21 the court would retain jurisdiction for purposes of enforcing its terms, the agreement was not 22 presented to the court prior to the dismissal nor incorporated by any order. 23 Plaintiff now seeks entry of judgment pursuant to a stipulation for entry of judgment the 24 parties executed in conjunction with the settlement, which was to be used if and only if defendant 25 failed to make all of the payments specified in the settlement agreement. Federal courts “have no 26 inherent power to enforce settlement agreements entered into by parties litigating before them.” 27 Arata v. Nu Skin Int’l, Inc., 96 F.3d 1265, 1268 (9th Cir. 1996) (citing Kokkonen v. Guardian Life 28 Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 378 (1994). Rather, courts have ancillary jurisdiction to enforce a Case 3:21-cv-03626-RS Document 41 Filed 01/17/23 Page 2 of 2 1 settlement agreement only “if the parties’ obligation to comply with the terms of the settlement 2 agreement ha[s] been made part of the order of dismissal—either by separate provision (such as a 3 provision ‘retaining jurisdiction’ over the settlement agreement) or by incorporating the terms of 4 the settlement agreement in the order.” Kokkonen, 511 U.S. at 381. 5 Accordingly, even assuming plaintiff’s prior dismissal of this action “with prejudice” 6 would otherwise pose no impediment to entry of the stipulated judgment, and that no issue would 7 arise from the fact that defendant’s counsel of record does not seem to have participated in the 8 execution of the settlement documents, there simply is no jurisdiction to enforce the settlement 9 terms. Plaintiff’s motion is denied. 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 IT IS SO ORDERED. 12 13 14 15 Dated: January 17, 2023 ______________________________________ RICHARD SEEBORG Chief United States District Judge 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 CASE NO. 2 21-cv-03626-RS

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?