Harvey et al v. Walden
Filing
246
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: It is ordered that the 239 Motion for Order to Show Cause is DENIED. It is further ordered that the 243 Motion for Hearing is DENIED. Signed by Judge Jennifer B Coffman on 7/13/2012. (SCD)cc: COR
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
CENTRAL DIVISION
LEXINGTON
CIVIL ACTION NO. 10-200-JBC
NANCY HARNEY, ET AL.,
V.
PLAINTIFFS,
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
JOHN WALDEN,
DEFENDANT.
***********
This matter is before the court on John Walden’s motion for an order
directing the plaintiffs to show cause why they should not be held in contempt for
violating the settlement agreement between the parties (R. 239). The court entered
an agreed order dismissing this case, with prejudice, as settled on March 30, 2012.
When further disputes between the parties arose over the enforcement of the
settlement agreement, Walden obtained new counsel, who filed the present motion.
Because the court does not have jurisdiction over the enforcement of the parties’
settlement agreement, it will deny the motion.
As a preliminary matter, the court notes that the parties mention two
pending state court actions, one in Bourbon Circuit Court and one in Fayette Circuit
Court, both filed in June 2012, that request enforcement of their settlement
agreement. The parties do not address the interplay of these two state court
actions with each other or the effect the existence of those actions would have on
1
this court’s exercise of jurisdiction. Before this court could consider taking
jurisdiction over the current dispute, the parties would have to address these
issues.
Another ground, however, precludes this court’s exercise of jurisdiction to
enforce the settlement agreement between the parties. Federal courts are courts of
limited jurisdiction, and the burden of establishing that a case is within the federal
court’s jurisdiction rests upon the party asserting jurisdiction. See Kokkonen v.
Guardian Life Ins. Co. of America, 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). “Enforcement of the
settlement agreement . . . is more than just a continuation or renewal of the
dismissed suit, and hence requires its own basis for jurisdiction.” Id. at 378.
Walden has provided no such basis that would enable this court to take jurisdiction
over the settlement dispute. The settlement agreement was neither entered into the
court record nor integrated into the order of dismissal, and the parties did not
request the court to retain jurisdiction over its enforcement. Id. at 381. Walden has
provided no other independent basis that would justify the exercise of federal
jurisdiction. Id. at 382. Walden has therefore not met his burden of establishing
that this court has jurisdiction to enforce the terms of the settlement agreement.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that the motion to show cause (R. 239) is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the motion for hearing (R. 243) is DENIED.
2
Signed on July 13, 2012
3
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?