Warner v. Cate et al

Filing 67

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE for 61 Report and Recommendations, and DENYING 57 Plaintiff's Motion to Enforce Settlement. Signed by Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers on 11/20/17. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(fs, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/20/2017)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3
4

EARL WARNER,

Case No. 11-cv-05039-YGR (PR)

Plaintiff,
5
v.
6
7

MATHEW L. CATE, et al.,
Defendants.

ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT
AND RECOMMENDATION OF
MAGISTRATE JUDGE; AND DENYING
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO ENFORCE
SETTLEMENT

8
9
Before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion to enforce settlement in this closed case, in which he

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

states that he wishes to reopen this action on the grounds that Defendants have either breached the

12

settlement agreement, or induced the settlement by fraud. Dkt. 57.

13

The Court previously referred Plaintiff’s motion to enforce settlement to Magistrate Judge

14

Nandor Vadas (“the Magistrate”) for a report and recommendation. Thereafter, the Magistrate

15

issued his report and recommendation in which he stated as follows:

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

The undersigned held a settlement conference in this case on May
23, 2013, at which the case was settled. (Doc. 52.) On June 28,
2013, the parties filed a Stipulation for Voluntary Dismissal with
Prejudice of this action. (Doc. 53.) On July 15, 2013, Judge
Gonzalez Rogers entered an Order Dismissing Action with
Prejudice. (Doc. 54.) The Clerk entered judgment the same day.
(Doc. 55.) Nearly four years later, Plaintiff filed the present motion
for enforcement of the settlement agreement. (Doc. 57.)
Federal Courts are courts of limited jurisdiction; they possess only
that power authorized by the Constitution and statue. Kokkonen v.
Guardian Life Ins. Co., 511 U.S. 375, 378 (1994.) [F]ederal courts
do not have inherent or ancillary jurisdiction to enforce a settlement
agreement simply because the subject of that settlement was a
federal lawsuit.” O’Connor v. Colvin, 70 F.3d 530, 532 (9th Cir.
1995) (citing Kokkonen, 511 U.S. at 379). Rather, a motion to
enforce the settlement agreement is a separate contract dispute
requiring its own independent basis for jurisdiction. Id. A federal
district court retains jurisdiction to enforce a settlement agreement
only when there is an independent basis for jurisdiction, or the
district court expressly reserves jurisdiction, or incorporates the
terms of the settlement agreement in the dismissal. O’Connor, 70
F.3d at 532-33 (explaining that a court’s mere awareness and
approval of the terms of a settlement agreement is insufficient to
create ancillary jurisdiction).

1

None of these exceptions applies here. Plaintiff’s motion claims a
breach of contract, which is a matter for state courts. Kokkonen, 70
F.3d at 382. Additionally, the court’s July 15, 2013 dismissal order
does not expressly retain jurisdiction, nor does it expressly
incorporate the terms of the settlement agreement. (Doc. 54.) The
undersigned finds, therefore, that the court lacks jurisdiction to
enforce the settlement agreement.

2
3
4
5

Moreover, even if Plaintiff’s motion could be construed as a motion
for relief under Federal Rule of Procedure 60(b), Plaintiff’s motion
is untimely. A Rule 60(b) motion must be made within a reasonable
time, and no more than a year after entry of the judgment if the
motion is based on fraud, misrepresentation, or misconduct by an
opposing party. Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 60(c)(1). Here, Plaintiff appears
to argue that Defendants either breached the settlement agreement,
or induced the settlement by fraud by changing the California
Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s kosher meals vendor
in April 2013. (Doc. 57 at 3.) But despite knowing of the vendor
change in 2013, and choosing to withdraw from the kosher food
program on May 24, 2014, Plaintiff did not file the present motion
until 2017. (Id. at 5.) As a result, the undersigned finds that
Plaintiff's motion is untimely under Rule 60(c). For these same
reasons, the undersigned finds that Plaintiff's motion is untimely
under Rule 60(b)(6).

6
7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13

CONCLUSION

14

Based on the foregoing, the undersigned recommends that the court
dismiss Plaintiff’s motion for lack of jurisdiction, or alternatively, as
untimely under Rule 60(c) and Rule 60(b)(6). Any party may file
objections to this report and recommendation with the presiding
judge within fourteen days after being served with a copy. See 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), (C); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); N.D. Cal. Civ.
L.R. 72-3. Failure to file objections within the specified time may
waive the right to review of the issue by the presiding judge.

15
16
17
18
19
20

Dkt. 61 at 1-2.
Any objections to a report and recommendation must be filed within fourteen days of

21

receipt thereof. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Civ. L.R. 72-2, 72-3. The district

22

court must “make a de novo determination of those portions of the report to which objection is

23

made,” and “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations

24

made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see also Civ. L.R. 72-3(a) (requiring that

25

any objections be accompanied by a motion for de novo determination).

26

Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 72-2, Plaintiff must title his objections as a “Motion for

27

Relief from Nondispositive Pretrial Order of Magistrate Judge.” The Local Rules further specify

28

as follows:
2

1
2
3
4
5

The motion must specifically identify the portion of the magistrate
judge’s order to which objection is made and the reasons and
authority therefor. The motion may not exceed 5 pages (not counting
declarations and exhibits), and must set forth specifically the
portions of the Magistrate Judge[’]s findings, recommendation or
report to which an objection is made, the action requested and the
reasons supporting the motion and must be accompanied by a
proposed order.
Civ. L.R. 72-2. In the event the plaintiff fails to comply with the foregoing, the Court need not

7

consider his challenge to the magistrate’s report and recommendation. See Tri-Valley CARES v.

8

U.S. Dept. of Energy, 671 F.3d 1113, 1131 (9th Cir. 2012); (“Denial of a motion as the result of a

9

failure to comply with local rules is well within a district court’s discretion.”); Grove v. Wells

10

Fargo Fin. Cal., Inc., 606 F.3d 577, 582 (9th Cir. 2010) (upholding district court’s denial of

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

6

motion to tax costs which was not in compliance with the court’s local rules).

12

After being granted an extension of time to do so, Plaintiff has submitted a timely

13

objection to the Magistrate’s Report and Recommendation. Dkt. 64. Defendants have also filed a

14

response. Dkt. 66.

15
16
17

The Court reviews the Magistrate’s legal conclusions de novo. See Lorin Corp. v. Goto &
Co., Ltd., 700 F.2d 1202, 1206 (9th Cir. 1983).
The record shows that Plaintiff did not file his motion to enforce until March 22, 2017,

18

which is, as the Magistrate has correctly pointed out, “nearly four years” after the July 15, 2013

19

entry of judgment. See Dkt. 61 at 1. Plaintiff argues that the Court maintains jurisdiction because

20

the Magistrate signaled intent to retain jurisdiction by setting a status conference for July 16, 2013,

21

following the May 23, 2013 settlement conference. See Dkt. 52. However, the Ninth Circuit has

22

explained that ancillary jurisdiction can only be maintained when the district court expressly

23

reserves jurisdiction or incorporates the terms of the settlement agreement in the dismissal order.

24

See O’Connor v. Colvin, 70 F.3d 530, 532 (9th Cir. 1995). Neither was done by this Court in the

25

instant matter, and thus it could not have maintained ancillary jurisdiction. See id. The Court

26

further finds irrelevant Plaintiff’s remaining arguments (including (1) his reliance on a series of

27

cases involving the standards for imposing sanctions and awarding attorneys’ fees following a

28

settlement, and (2) the dismissal of his subsequent complaint as duplicative in Case No. 16-4345
3

1

YGR (PR)1) because they do not address the issue of jurisdiction over a settlement agreement’s

2

enforcement. See Dkt. 64 at 2-3. Thus upon its de novo review, the Court finds no error in

3

Magistrate’s recommendation that Plaintiff’s motion to enforce the settlement be denied. The

4

Court therefore adopts the Report and Recommendation in full, including the Magistrate’s

5

conclusion that this Court “lacks jurisdiction to enforce the settlement agreement.” Dkt. 61 at 2.

6

Even if Plaintiff’s motion could be construed as a motion for relief under Federal Rule of

7

Procedure 60(b), the Magistrate has made an alternative finding that such a motion is untimely

8

under Rule 60(c) and 60(b)(6). See id. at 2. As mentioned above, Civil Local Rule 72-2 requires

9

Plaintiff to “specifically the portions of the Magistrate Judge[’]s findings, recommendation or
report to which an objection is made, the action requested and the reasons supporting the motion

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

and must be accompanied by a proposed order.” Civ. L.R. 72-2. However, Plaintiff does not

12

address the Magistrate’s finding that Plaintiff’s motion is untimely under Rule 60(c) and (b)(6).

13

See Dkt. 64. Although Plaintiff is pro se, he remains subject to the same rules and procedures as a

14

represented party. See Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 54 (9th Cir. 1995) (per curiam). The failure

15

to comply with the Local Rules, standing alone, warrants the adoption of the Magistrate’s Report

16

and Recommendation and the denial of Plaintiff’s motion to enforce on this basis as well. Tri-

17

Valley CARES, 671 F.3d at 1131.
CONCLUSION

18
19

The Court has reviewed Magistrate’s Report and Recommendation, as well as Plaintiff’s

20

objection and Defendants’ response. The Court finds the Report and Recommendation correct,

21

well-reasoned and thorough. In particular, the Court concurs with the Magistrate’s assessment

22

that this Court “lacks jurisdiction to enforce the settlement agreement.” Id.

23

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the Magistrate’s Report and

24

Recommendation (Dkt. 61) is ACCEPTED and shall become the Order of this Court. Therefore,

25

the Court ADOPTS the Magistrate’s recommendation and DENIES Plaintiff’s motion to enforce

26

the settlement. Dkt. 57.

27
1

28

Plaintiff does not cite any statute or case law showing dismissal of his other complaint as
duplicative, see Case No. 16-4345 YGR (PR), is an independent basis for jurisdiction.
4

1

This Order terminates Docket Nos. 57 and 61.

2

IT IS SO ORDERED.

3
4
5

Dated: November 20, 2017
______________________________________
YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS
United States District Judge

6
7
8
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
5