Harris v. Davis et al

Filing 64

ORDER by Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. DENYING 63 REQUEST FOR ANCILLARY JURISDICTION OVER SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT/ (ndrS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/28/2020)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
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

MAURICE L. HARRIS,
Plaintiff,

8
v.

9
10

RON DAVIS, et al.,

ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR
ANCILLARY JURISDICTION OVER
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
Re: Dkt. No. 63

Defendants.

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

Case No. 17-cv-03269-HSG

12
Plaintiff, a California prisoner proceeding pro se and currently incarcerated at San Quentin

13
14

State Prison, filed the instant civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Now pending

15

before the Court is Plaintiff’s request that the Court retain ancillary jurisdiction over the settlement

16

agreement. Dkt. No. 63. The Court DENIES this request for the following reasons.
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

17

On November 10, 2020, the Court dismissed this action with prejudice pursuant to the

18
19

November 6, 2020 Stipulation for Voluntary Dismissal with Prejudice (Fed. R. Civ. P.

20

41(a)(1)(A)(ii)), executed by both Plaintiff and counsel for Defendants. Dkt. Nos. 61, 62. In the

21

Order of Dismissal, the Court did not specifically retain jurisdiction over the settlement

22

agreement.1 Dkt. No. 62. A status conference before Judge Illman has been set for January 5,

23

2021 regarding payment and signatures. Dkt. No. 60.
DISCUSSION

24

Plaintiff requests that the Court retain ancillary jurisdiction over the settlement agreement

25
26

until the agreement has been executed, stating that he is uncertain whether Defendants have

27
28

1

Neither party requested that the Court retain jurisdiction over the settlement agreement. See Dkt.
No. 61.

1

executed the settlement agreement because he has not received a copy of the settlement agreement

2

signed by both parties. Dkt. No. 63. Plaintiff’s request is DENIED.

3

A district court retains jurisdiction over a settlement agreement only if (1) the order

4

specifically states that the court retains jurisdiction, or (2) the court embodies the agreement in its

5

dismissal order. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 381-82 (1994). A

6

dismissal order that merely states it is “based on” or was issued “pursuant to” a settlement does

7

not embody the agreement, and there is no ancillary jurisdiction to enforce the agreement.

8

O’Connor v. Colvin, 70 F.3d 530, 532 (9th Cir. 1995). In addition, a “judge’s mere awareness and

9

approval of the terms of the settlement agreement do not suffice to make them part of his order.”
Kokkonen, 511 U.S. at 381; see also id. (“even a district court’s expressed intention to retain

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

jurisdiction is insufficient to confer jurisdiction if that intention is not expressed in the order of

12

dismissal.”). If a district court retains jurisdiction over a settlement agreement, breach of the

13

settlement agreement violates the court’s order, thereby providing the district court ancillary

14

jurisdiction to enforce the agreement. Id. at 381. However, where a district court has not

15

specifically retained jurisdiction over a settlement agreement, the district court lacks authority to

16

decide any dispute arising from a settlement agreement, e.g., a motion to enforce the agreement,

17

after dismissal of the suit. Id. at 382.
Here, the Court did not specifically retain jurisdiction over the settlement agreement in the

18
19

Order of Dismissal. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s request that the Court retain ancillary jurisdiction

20

over the settlement agreement is DENIED.

21

CONCLUSION

22

For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s request that the Court retain

23

ancillary jurisdiction over the settlement agreement. The Court notes that a status conference will

24

take place in less than two weeks that is intended to address the issues of signatures and payment.

25

Dkt. No. 60. Plaintiff is advised to raise his concerns at the status conference. The Court requests

26

that Defendants provide Plaintiff with a signed copy of the settlement agreement.

27

//

28

//
2

1

This order terminates Dkt. No. 63.

2

IT IS SO ORDERED.

3
4
5

Dated: 12/28/2020
______________________________________
HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.
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
3