Dreamdealers USA, LLC v. World Class Driving, Inc et al

Filing 99

ORDER that 92 Plaintiff's Motion to Reopen the Case is DENIED. Signed by Chief Judge Gloria M. Navarro on 8/3/17. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MMM)

Download PDF
1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 DREAMDEALERS USA, LLC, 4 5 Plaintiff, vs. 6 WORLD CLASS DRIVING, INC., et al, 7 Defendants. 8 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No.: 2:12-cv-01151-GMN-PAL ORDER 9 On July 3, 2013, the Court granted the parties’ Stipulation of Dismissal with prejudice 10 and closed the case. (ECF No. 90). Now, over three years later, Plaintiff Dreamdealers USA, 11 LLC (“Plaintiff”) moves to reopen the case pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(a). 12 (Mot. to Reopen, ECF No. 92). According to Plaintiff, the parties originally intended the Court 13 to retain jurisdiction over the parties’ settlement agreement, but inadvertently omitted such 14 language from the stipulation of dismissal. (Id. 2:1–6). 15 Generally, federal courts lack jurisdiction to enforce settlement agreements. O’Connor v. 16 Colvin, 70 F.3d 530, 532 (9th Cir. 1995) (citing Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co., 511 U.S. 17 375 (1994)). An exception to this rule exists where the order dismissing the action incorporates 18 the terms of the settlement agreement or otherwise expressly indicates that the court intends to 19 retain jurisdiction over the settlement agreement. Id. Here, the dismissal order neither 20 expressly reserved jurisdiction nor incorporated the terms of the settlement agreement. (See 21 Order, ECF No. 90). 22 Nonetheless, Plaintiff argues that the Court should retain jurisdiction due to the parties’ 23 inadvertent omission of the requisite language in their stipulation. (Mot. to Reopen 11:4–12). 24 In determining whether a mistake may be corrected under Rule 60(a), the Ninth Circuit focuses 25 on “what the court originally intended to do.” Tattersalls, Ltd. v. DeHaven, 745 F.3d 1294, Page 1 of 2 1 1297 (9th Cir. 2014). In other words, Rule 60(a) allows a court to “correct records to show 2 what was done, rather than change them to reflect what should have been done.” Sin Ho Nam v. 3 Quichocho, 2012 WL 2550595, at *1 (D. N. Mar. I. Feb. 21, 2012) (quoting Blue Cross & Blue 4 Shield Ass’n v. Am. Express Co., 467 F.3d 634, 637 (7th Cir. 2006)). Here, regardless of the 5 parties’ alleged intentions, the Court had no intention to retain jurisdiction after dismissal. 6 Accordingly, the dismissal order reflects the Court’s original intention and Rule 60(a) does not 7 apply. 8 9 Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Reopen the Case, (ECF No. 92), is DENIED. 10 11 3 DATED this _____ day of August, 2017. 12 13 14 ___________________________________ Gloria M. Navarro, Chief Judge United States District Court 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 2 of 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?