Petersen-Dean Inc. v. Folk et al

Filing 118

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: JURISDICTION. Re: ECF 99 , 108 . The Court orders both parties to show cause in writing filed by 2/20/2018, why it has jurisdiction to consider the motions at ECF 99 and 108 . The Court VACATES the 2/21 hearings in this case and will re-notice them if it determines that jurisdiction is satisfied. Signed by Judge Nathanael Cousins on 2/13/2018. (lmh, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/13/2018)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

PETERSEN-DEAN INC.,
Plaintiff,

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14

Case No. 15-cv-05522-NC
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE:
JURISDICTION

v.
DIETER FOLK, et al.,

Re: ECF 99, 108

Defendants.

15
16

Before the Court are plaintiff’s Motion to Vacate Dismissal and Enforce Settlement

17

Agreement (ECF 99) and defendants’ Counter-motion to Compel Arbitration (ECF 108).

18

Both motions arise from the settlement agreement that resolved this case. On September

19

14, 2016, the parties filed a “Stipulation of Dismissal With Prejudice” under Federal Rule

20

of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). ECF 93. That same day, the Court granted the

21

proposed order and dismissed the case with prejudice. ECF 94.

22

Before the Court may assess the merits of the competing motions, it first must

23

consider whether it has jurisdiction to do so. Federal district courts are courts of limited

24

jurisdiction; “[t]hey possess only that power authorized by Constitution and statute, which

25

is not to be expanded by judicial decree.” Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511

26

U.S. 375, 377 (1994) (citation omitted). Accordingly, “[i]t is to be presumed that a cause

27

lies outside this limited jurisdiction, and the burden of establishing the contrary rests upon

28

the party asserting jurisdiction.” Id.; Chandler v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 598 F.3d

1
2

1115, 1122 (9th Cir. 2010).
In Kokkonen, the Supreme Court considered whether it had jurisdiction to enforce

3

the terms of a settlement agreement reached in a U.S. district court. The Court found that

4

it did not, unless the Court “embod[ied] the settlement contract in its dismissal order” or

5

“retain[ed] jurisdiction over the settlement contract.” 511 U.S. at 381-82.

6

None of the exceptions in Kokkonen applies here. The parties in their Stipulation of

7

Dismissal did not ask the Court to retain jurisdiction and did not expressly incorporate the

8

terms of the settlement agreement. ECF 93. The Court’s dismissal order accordingly did

9

not retain jurisdiction. ECF 94.

10

The Court finds that the post-settlement disputes presented here are of the same

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

type that were dismissed in Kokkonen and Warner v. Cate, Case No. 11-cv-05039 YGR,

12

2017 WL 5560651 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 20, 2017). Here, as in those cases, it appears that the

13

Court lacks jurisdiction to enforce the settlement agreement.

14

In addition, the Court is not persuaded that plaintiff’s motion to set aside the

15

dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6) is timely. A motion under Rule

16

60(b) must be made within a “reasonable time.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(c). Here, the dismissal

17

was entered September 14, 2016, and plaintiff’s motion to set aside the dismissal was filed

18

January 17, 2018, which is more than 16 months later.

19

The Court therefore orders both parties to show cause in writing filed by February

20

20, 2018, why it has jurisdiction to consider the motions at ECF 99 and 108. The Court

21

VACATES the February 21 hearings in this case and will re-notice them if it determines

22

that jurisdiction is satisfied.

23
24

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: February 13, 2018

25

_____________________________________
NATHANAEL M. COUSINS
United States Magistrate Judge

26
27
28
Case No. 15-cv-05522-NC

2