Plaspro GMBH v. Gens et al

Filing 129

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO ENFORCE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT by Judge Paul S. Grewal denying 123 Motion to Reopen Case; denying 123 Motion to enforce settlement agreement (psglc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/16/2013)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9

SAN JOSE DIVISION

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11

PLASPRO GMBH,
Plaintiffs,

12
13
14

v.
TIMOTHY GENS, CHEMACOUSTIC
TECHNOLOGIES INC., ET. AL.,
Defendant.

15
16

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: C 09-4302 PSG
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO
ENFORCE SETTLEMENT
AGREEMENT
(Re: Docket No. 123)

17
After a case is dismissed, the court’s jurisdiction over the case ends unless the court

18
19

expressly retains jurisdiction.1 Otherwise, the court must have independent federal subject matter

20

jurisdiction, which in a breach of settlement contract action means diversity jurisdiction pursuant to

21

28 U.S.C. § 1332.2

22
23

After the parties here agreed to a Settlement Agreement, Plaintiff Plaspro GMBH
(“Plaspro”) filed a voluntary dismissal of the action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i)

24
25
26
1

27

See Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 381-82 (1994) (court may retain
jurisdiction over the settlement contract by providing as much in its dismissal order).

28

2

See id.
1

Case No.: 09-4302 PSG
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO ENFORCE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

1

without requesting that the court retain jurisdiction over enforcement of the settlement agreement.3

2

Plaspro admitted in its motion papers and at the motion hearing that the amount in controvery for

3

its breach of settlement agreement action is less than $75,000.4 Accordingly, the court lacks

4

jurisdiction over Plaspro’s motion and the motion is DENIED. The court regrets the obvious

5

inefficiency in this outcome, as well as the likely passing of this dispute to the burdened dockets of

6

the state courts. But this court’s subject matter jurisdiction is non-discretionary.

7
8
9

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: September 16, 2013

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

_________________________________

11

PAUL S. GREWAL
United States Magistrate Judge

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

3

See Docket No. 117.

28

4

See Docket No. 123 at 2.
2

Case No.: 09-4302 PSG
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO ENFORCE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT