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)
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?