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)

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