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
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?