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)

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