Jackson v. Lozano et al

Filing 28

ORDER denying 26 Motion to Reopen Case; ORDER denying 27 Motion to Enforce; Signed by Judge Gloria M. Navarro on 4/21/2020. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - JM)

Case 2:14-cv-01922-GMN-NJK Document 28 Filed 04/21/20 Page 1 of 3

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3

RAYMOND JACKSON,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

4
5

Plaintiff,
vs.

6

ALEXIS LOZANO, et al.,
7
8

Defendants.

Case No.: 2:14-cv-01922-GMN-NJK
ORDER

9

Pending before the Court are Plaintiff Raymond Jackson’s (“Plaintiff’s”) Motion to

10

Reopen Case, (ECF No. 26), and Motion to Enforce Stipulated Agreement, (ECF No. 27).

11

Defendants did not respond to either Motion. For the reasons discussed below, the Court

12

DENIES Plaintiff’s Motions.

13

This case arises from Plaintiff’s allegation that several employees of the Nevada

14

Department of Corrections (“NDOC”) violated Plaintiff’s civil rights during an incident that

15

ended with Plaintiff being shot in the hand. (See generally Compl., ECF No. 8). Ultimately, the

16

parties settled and stipulated to dismiss the case with prejudice. (See Mins. Proceedings Inmate

17

Early Mediation Conference, ECF No. 22); (Stipulation, ECF No. 24). The Court granted the

18

Stipulation, but the Order neither incorporates the terms of the settlement agreement nor

19

indicates that the Court will retain jurisdiction over disputes implicating settlement

20

enforcement. (Order Granting Stipulation, ECF No. 25). Plaintiff now seeks to reopen the case

21

and have the Court enforce the settlement agreement, alleging that Defendants have violated

22

the parties’ written agreement by failing to discharge $5,000.00 of Plaintiff’s debt to NDOC.

23

(See Mot. Reopen Case 2:8–13, ECF No. 26).

24
25

As an initial matter, the Court does not have jurisdiction to enforce the parties’
settlement agreement. Federal courts do not have jurisdiction to enforce a settlement

Page 1 of 3

Case 2:14-cv-01922-GMN-NJK Document 28 Filed 04/21/20 Page 2 of 3

1

agreement resulting in dismissal of the litigation unless either the court’s dismissal order

2

embodies the terms of the parties’ settlement agreement, or there is an independent basis for

3

federal jurisdiction. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 381–82 (1994).

4

Here, the Court’s dismissal Order does not contain the terms of the parties’ settlement

5

agreement. (See Order Granting Stipulation, ECF No. 25). Plaintiff does not allege that the

6

Court has diversity jurisdiction over the settlement dispute. (See Mot. Enforce, ECF No. 27).

7

Enforcement of the settlement agreement therefore appears to necessitate that Plaintiff bring a

8

breach of contract action in state court. Kokkonen, 511 U.S. at 382.1
Regarding Plaintiff’s Motion to Reopen Case, a court may reopen a case under Federal

9
10

Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6) if the non-moving party, in bad faith, repudiates the settlement

11

agreement that procured the termination of the litigation. See Keeling v. Sheet Metal Workers

12

Int’l. Ass’n., Local Union 162, 937 F.2d 408, 410–411 (9th Cir. 1991). The moving party must

13

provide evidence of the settlement agreement and that the opponent repudiated, or completely

14

frustrated, execution of the settlement agreement. See id. Here, Plaintiff alleges that

15

Defendants have violated the settlement agreement by refusing to discharge Plaintiff’s

16

$5,000.00 debt to NDOC. (See Mot. Reopen Case 2:8–13, ECF No. 26). However, Plaintiff

17

does not provide supporting evidence of the purported breach. (See generally id.). Not only is

18

the written settlement agreement absent from the record before the Court, but Plaintiff provides

19

no evidence of the purported breach. (See id.) The pleadings’ allegations are not evidence and

20

are therefore insufficient to substantiate Plaintiff’s contention that Defendants breached the

21

agreement. See United States v. Zermeno, 66 F.3d 1058, 1062 (9th Cir. 1995) (“The

22

government’s assertions in its pleadings are not evidence.”); S. Pac. Co. v. Conway, 115 F.2d

23
24

Plaintiff notes that the parties’ settlement agreement contains a forum selection clause requiring adjudication of
settlement disputes in this Court. (Mot. Enforce 2:9–19). However, even if the settlement agreement contains
such a term, the parties may not consent to federal subject matter jurisdiction by agreement. See Morongo Band
of Mission Indians v. Cal. State Bd. of Equalization, 858 F.2d 1376, 1380 (9th Cir. 1988).
1

25

Page 2 of 3

Case 2:14-cv-01922-GMN-NJK Document 28 Filed 04/21/20 Page 3 of 3

1

746, 750 (9th Cir. 1940) (“[T]he office of a pleading is to state ultimate facts and not evidence

2

of such facts.”). Plaintiff may file a renewed motion to reopen case to the extent that he can

3

provide a true and correct copy of the settlement agreement and evidence of Defendants’

4

breach thereof.

5
6
7
8
9

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion to Reopen Case, (ECF No. 26), is
DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion to Enforce Stipulated Agreement, (ECF
No. 27), is DENIED.
21
DATED this _____ day of April, 2020.

10
11
12

___________________________________
Gloria M. Navarro, District Judge
United States District Court

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

Page 3 of 3