Johnson v. Alcindor et al

Filing 43

ORDER Denying 40 Motion to Vacate. Signed by Judge James C. Mahan on 3/22/12. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MMM)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 9 10 11 LAUSTEVEION JOHNSON, #82138 12 13 Plaintiff, vs. TREVOR ALCINDOR, et al., 14 Defendants. 15 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) / 2:10-cv-02143-JCM-GWF ORDER 16 Presently before the court is plaintiff Lausteveion Johnson’s motion to vacate his settlement 17 agreement with defendants. (Doc. #40). Defendants have replied. (Doc. #41). 18 This action was terminated on March 7, 2012, pursuant to the parties’ stipulation of dismissal 19 with prejudice. (Doc. #39). Apparently, the parties stipulated to dismiss the case because they had 20 reached a settlement agreement between themselves. The stipulation, however, does not reference the 21 settlement agreement or inform the court of its terms. 22 Neither party discusses whether or not this court has jurisdiction to grant plaintiff the relief he 23 seeks. Applying the holding of Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of America, 511 U.S. 375 (1994), 24 to the facts of this case, the court finds that it lacks jurisdiction to vacate the settlement agreement. 25 ... 26 1 In Kokkonen, the Supreme Court held that where parties stipulate to a dismissal with prejudice, 2 pursuant to an unenumerated settlement agreement, the court does not retain jurisdiction to enforce the 3 terms of that settlement. Id. at 381-82. In Kokkonen, the parties settled their dispute. Upon agreeing 4 to settlement terms, they filed a stipulation of dismissal with prejudice pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 5 41(a)(2). The stipulation of dismissal “did not reserve jurisdiction in the District Court to enforce the 6 settlement agreement; indeed, it did not so much as refer to the settlement agreement.” Id. at 377. 7 The Supreme Court explained that because the parties agreed to dismiss with prejudice, and did 8 not reserve any jurisdiction in the district court to enforce the settlement, the district court lacked the 9 inherent authority to reopen the case and enforce the settlement agreement. Id. at 381-82. As the court 10 explained, “enforcement of the settlement agreement . . . whether through award of damages or decree 11 of specific performance, is more than just a continuation or renewal of the dismissed suit, and hence 12 requires its own basis for jurisdiction.” Id. at 378. The court reversed the district court’s order enforcing 13 the settlement agreement, and remanded so the lower court could determine if there was an independent 14 basis for federal jurisdiction. Id. at 382. 15 Kokkonen makes clear that this court lacks jurisdiction to enforce the settlement agreement. If 16 the court cannot enforce the agreement, the court fails to see how it retains jurisdiction to vacate the 17 agreement. The settlement agreement exists independent of plaintiff’s complaint and therefore “requires 18 its own basis for jurisdiction.” Id. at 378. Absent such a basis, the case remains closed pursuant to the 19 parties’ stipulation. 20 Accordingly, 21 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that plaintiff’s motion to vacate 22 23 (doc. #40) be, and the same hereby is, DENIED. DATED March 22, 2012. 24 25 _________________________________________ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 26 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?