Sunnergren v. Cate

Filing 76

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION. Signed by Judge Hon. Lucy H. Koh on 11/2/2015. No further filings will be accepted in this closed case. The Clerk shall terminate all pending motions. (sms, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/2/2015)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
MARK E. SUNNERGREN,
10
Plaintiff,
11
vs.
12
13

MICHAEL CATE, et al.,

14

Defendants.

15

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

No. C 12-0979 LHK (PR)
ORDER DENYING MOTION
FOR RECONSIDERATION

16
Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a civil rights complaint pursuant to 42
17
U.S.C. § 1983. On April 8, 2015, after the parties entered into a settlement agreement, and filed
18
a stipulation of dismissal, the court granted the stipulation of dismissal with prejudice and closed
19

the case. On May 1, 2015, plaintiff filed a motion to reconsider the dismissal.1 Defendants have

20
filed an opposition. Plaintiff has not filed a reply.
21
In the motion, plaintiff states that the settlement agreement provided defendants would
22
pay plaintiff $5350.00, subject to deductions for any of plaintiff’s outstanding obligations
23
including court restitution and filing fees. Plaintiff states that he received checks from
24
defendants totaling $2958.27, but he argues that he should have received $3877.75. Plaintiff
25
26
1

27
28

On May 11, 2015, plaintiff filed a notice of appeal in an effort to appeal the stipulation
of dismissal. On June 10, 2015, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal for lack
of jurisdiction because a stipulation of dismissal is not a final or appealable order. (Docket No.
73.)
Order Denying Motion for Reconsideration
P:\PRO-SE\LHK\CR.12\Sunngergren979reconsett.wpd

1

claims that defendants improperly withheld $2392.33 from the total amount. Defendants

2

respond that plaintiff has miscalculated his deductions. Because plaintiff was assigned two

3

different CDCR numbers, plaintiff did not include in his total deductions the restitution

4

obligations from the second CDCR number. (Opp., Ex. 1.) These obligations plus the 5%

5

administrative fee total $2931.73. Thus, argue defendants, the $2958.27 paid to plaintiff was

6

proper. Plaintiff does not respond to defendants’ explanation of their calculation.

7

Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration asks the court to “stay” the entry of dismissal

8

pending full payment of the agreed upon settlement, and requests that the defendants disclose

9

their calculations. Plaintiff’s motion does not request reconsideration of the dismissal. Rather,

10

plaintiff requests enforcement of the settlement agreement.

11

Even assuming that the amount plaintiff has received is incorrect, which does not appear

12

to be the case, the court lacks jurisdiction to enforce the agreement. See Kokkonen v. Guardian

13

Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 381-82 (1994) (the district court lacked jurisdiction over a

14

motion to enforce settlement following entry of a stipulated dismissal with prejudice where there

15

was no provision in the settlement agreement retaining jurisdiction, and the settlement agreement

16

was not incorporated into the order dismissing with prejudice). Without a provision in the

17

agreement to retain jurisdiction, there is no basis for federal jurisdiction. See id. at 382

18

(recognizing that “enforcement of the settlement agreement is for state courts, unless there is

19

some independent basis for federal jurisdiction”). Thus, plaintiff’s remedy for any breach or

20

enforcement lies in state court. See Keeling v. Sheet Metal Workers Int’l Ass’n, 937 F.2d 408,

21

410 (9th Cir. 1991) (“In the usual course upon repudiation of a settlement agreement, the

22

frustrated party may sue anew for breach of the agreement and may not, as here, reopen the

23

underlying litigation after dismissal.”). Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion is DENIED.

24

Alternatively, to the extent plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration of the dismissal is one

25

filed under Rule 59(e), such a motion “should not be granted, absent highly unusual

26

circumstances, unless the district court is presented with newly discovered evidence, committed

27

clear error, or if there is an intervening change in the law.” McDowell v. Calderon, 197 F.3d

28

1253, 1255 (9th Cir. 1999) (citation omitted) (en banc). Plaintiff does not present any of those
Order Denying Motion for Reconsideration
P:\PRO-SE\LHK\CR.12\Sunngergren979reconsett.wpd

2

1

factors to warrant reconsideration of the stipulation of dismissal. Even if the court could

2

construe plaintiff’s argument as including “newly discovered evidence,” evidence of plaintiff’s

3

financial obligations was available at the time he entered into the stipulation of dismissal.

4

Again, plaintiff’s claim is more properly understood as a question of whether defendants

5

breached the settlement agreement rather than an argument that plaintiff has discovered new

6

evidence to warrant a reconsideration of the settlement agreement and corresponding stipulation

7

of dismissal.

8
9

To the extent plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration is one filed under Rule 60(b), plaintiff
must show one or more of the following: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable

10

neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence which by due diligence could not have been discovered

11

in time to move for a new trial; (3) fraud by the adverse party; (4) the judgment is void; (5) the

12

judgment has been satisfied; (6) any other reason justifying relief. Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b); School

13

Dist. 1J v. ACandS Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993). Plaintiff has not provided any

14

evidence to support an argument that he is entitled to reconsideration under subsections 1

15

through 5.

16

Rule 60(b)(6) is a “catchall” provision where, generally, only “extraordinary

17

circumstances” justify relief. Samish Indian Tribe v. Washington, 394 F.3d 1152, 1157 (9th Cir.

18

2005). Where there is evidence of “bad faith noncompliance,” “[r]epudiation of a settlement

19

agreement that terminated litigation pending before a court constitutes an extraordinary

20

circumstance” that will “justif[y] vacating the court’s prior dismissal order.” Keeley, 937 F.2d at

21

410-11. To justify relief under Rule 60(b)(6), the repudiation must amount to a complete

22

frustration of the settlement agreement and not merely a single breach or disagreements over

23

proper interpretation. See Hermetic Order of Golden Dawn, Inc. v. Griffin, No. 08-16904, 400

24

Fed. App’x. 166, 167 (9th Cir. 2010) (citing Keeling) (unpublished memorandum disposition).

25

Plaintiff has not demonstrated a complete frustration of the settlement agreement. Rather,

26

plaintiff is merely disagreeing with defendants’ calculation of the total payment.

27
28

Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration is DENIED. No further filings will be accepted in
this closed case. The Clerk shall terminate all pending motions.
Order Denying Motion for Reconsideration
P:\PRO-SE\LHK\CR.12\Sunngergren979reconsett.wpd

3

1
2
3

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: 11/2/2015
LUCY H. KOH
United States District Judge

4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Order Denying Motion for Reconsideration
P:\PRO-SE\LHK\CR.12\Sunngergren979reconsett.wpd

4