Michaud v. Bannister et al

Filing 103

ORDER that 100 Motion for Reimbursement of Filing Fees is denied. FURTHER ORDERED that 102 Motion of Defendants Retaliatory Actions is denied. Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 1/15/15. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MMM)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

8

***

9

JOHN MICHAUD,

Case No. 2:08-cv-01371-MMD-PAL
Plaintiff,

10
v.
11

DR. ROBERT BANNISTER, et al.,
12

ORDER
(Plf’s Motion for Reimbursement – dkt. no.
100; Plf’s Motion of Defs’ Retaliatory
Actions – dkt. no. 102)

Defendant.
13
14

On September 13, 2013, the Court entered an Order granting the parties’

15

stipulation to dismiss this case with prejudice. (Dkt. no. 99.) That stipulation was the

16

result of a settlement reached between the parties. (Dkt. no. 97.) It stated that the parties

17

“stipulate and agree that all proceedings in the above-captioned matter be dismissed

18

with prejudice, with all parties to bear their own attorney’s fees and costs.” (Dkt. no. 99.)

19

In his Motion for Reimbursement of Filing Fees, Plaintiff argues that he entered into a

20

settlement agreement with Defendants but has not received reimbursement of his filing

21

fees. (Dkt. no. 100.)

22

To the extent Plaintiff is arguing that his settlement agreement calls for

23

reimbursement of his filing costs, this Court is without authority to enforce the terms of

24

that agreement. In Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co., 511 U.S. 375, 379-81 (1994), the

25

Supreme Court held that federal courts do not have inherent or ancillary jurisdiction to

26

enforce a settlement agreement simply because the subject of that settlement was a

27

federal lawsuit. When the initial action is dismissed, federal jurisdiction terminates. Id. A

28

motion to enforce the settlement agreement is a separate contract dispute requiring its

1

own independent basis for jurisdiction. Id. Therefore, “absent an express retention by a

2

district court of jurisdiction to enforce a settlement agreement reached in a case pending

3

before it, such ‘enforcement of the settlement agreement is for the state courts, unless

4

there is some independent basis for federal jurisdiction.’” Camacho v. City of San Luis,

5

359 F. App’x 794, 798 (9th Cir. 2009) (quoting Kokkonen, 511 U.S. at 381-82).

6

To the extent that Plaintiff is, separate and apart from the settlement, asking this

7

Court to enter a judgment awarding costs, such a judgment is foreclosed by the parties’

8

stipulation, which dismissed this case with prejudice and with each party bearing their

9

own costs. (Dkt. no. 99.) The Court therefore cannot order Defendants to pay for

10

Plaintiff’s costs at this stage.

11

Plaintiff’s Motion of Defendants Retaliatory Actions sets out new allegations of

12

retaliatory action allegedly taken by Defendants after the parties reached their settlement

13

agreement and this Court dismissed this case with prejudice. (Dkt. no. 102.) Although

14

the allegations in Plaintiff’s motion are troubling, this case is closed and Plaintiff may not

15

raise new allegations at this time. Plaintiff must exhaust any relevant grievance

16

procedures and file a separate action.

17
18
19
20
21

It is hereby ordered that Plaintiff’s Motion for Reimbursement of Filing Fees (dkt.
no. 100) is denied.
It is further ordered that Plaintiff’s Motion of Defendants Retaliatory Actions (dkt.
no. 102) is denied.
ENTERED THIS 15th day of January 2015.

22
23
MIRANDA M. DU
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

24
25
26
27
28
2