Collins v. Collins et al

Filing 347

ORDER - It is ordered that the Court lacks jurisdiction over the parties' pending objections and motion (ECF Nos. 328 , 336 , 344 ). These pending objections and motion are accordingly denied as moot.It is further ordered that thi s case will remain closed. The Court will not entertain any further filings in this closed case and will indeed summarily deny any subsequent motions filed under this case number regarding the Settlement Agreement. Signed by Chief Judge Miranda M. Du on 10/6/2021. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - SMR)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

5

***

6

RONALD COLLINS,

Case No. 3:16-cv-00111-MMD-WGC
Plaintiff,

7

ORDER

v.
8
JOSHUA COLLINS, et al.,
9
Defendants.
10
11

The parties to this closed case entered into a settlement agreement. (See, e.g.,

12

ECF No. 294 at 33-40 (dated Jan. 27 and Feb. 6, 2020) (“Settlement Agreement”).) The

13

parties subsequently filed a stipulation to dismiss this case with prejudice that the Court

14

signed, closing this case. (ECF No. 293 (issued Feb. 11, 2020) (“Dismissal Order”).) The

15

Dismissal Order contained only two provisions. It first provided that this case was

16

dismissed, in its entirety, with prejudice, with each party to bear its own attorneys’ fees

17

and costs. (Id. at 1.) Second, it stated, “[t]his Stipulation for Dismissal with Prejudice is

18

executed according to the terms agreed upon in the Settlement Agreement executed by

19

the parties…” (Id. at 2.) Before the Court are two pending objections to subsequent rulings

20

by United States Magistrate Judge William G. Cobb filed by Plaintiff Ronald Collins (ECF

21

Nos. 328, 344) and Defendants’ motion to stay this case in which Defendants imprecisely1

22

argue the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the parties’ dispute regarding the

23

Settlement Agreement (ECF No. 336). Because the Court finds it lacks subject matter

24

jurisdiction over the parties’ dispute as to the Settlement Agreement reflected in the

25
26
27
28

1The

Court does not condone Defendants’ counsel’s approach of moving to stay
this case until he has time to file a motion to dismiss, particularly considering that the
motion to stay contains the arguments that a motion to dismiss would have contained
anyway. Such an approach generates unnecessary motion practice.

1

pending motion and objections, and as further explained below, the Court will deny the

2

pending motion and objections as moot.

3

“Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction.” Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins.

4

Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). Federal courts lack jurisdiction “over disputes

5

arising out of an agreement that produces” a stipulation to dismiss a case with prejudice,

6

provided the dismissal order does not contain an ongoing jurisdiction clause. Id. at 378;

7

see also id. at 377-82.

8

Indeed, in Kokkonen, the parties stipulated to dismiss their case with prejudice and

9

“the District Judge signed the Stipulation and Order under the notation ‘It is so ordered.’.”

10

Id. at 376-77. One of the parties subsequently felt the other was not honoring their

11

settlement agreement and brought a motion to enforce the settlement agreement. See id.

12

at 377. The district court entered an enforcement order under its inherent powers. See id.

13

The Supreme Court found that decision was error, going on to explain that federal courts

14

lack jurisdiction over settlement agreement disputes if the operative stipulation to dismiss

15

the case does not include a provision giving the district court ongoing jurisdiction to

16

adjudicate disputes as to the settlement agreement. See id. at 377-82.

17

In its present posture, this case is materially indistinguishable from Kokkonen. The

18

Dismissal Order does not give the Court ongoing jurisdiction to adjudicate disputes over

19

the Settlement Agreement. (ECF No. 293.) Here, like in Kokkonen, “the only order . . . was

20

that the suit be dismissed, a disposition that is in no way flouted or imperiled by the alleged

21

breach of the settlement agreement.” 511 U.S. at 380. The Court accordingly lacks

22

jurisdiction over the parties’ dispute about the Settlement Agreement reflected in the

23

pending objections and motion.2 See id. at 377-82.

24

///

25

///

26
27
28

2While

irrelevant to the Court’s decision here, the Settlement Agreement also states
that Collins’ remedy in the event of a perceived breach is to file a new lawsuit, not file
something in this case like he did here. (ECF No. 294 at 37.)
2

1

It is therefore ordered that the Court lacks jurisdiction over the parties’ pending

2

objections and motion (ECF Nos. 328, 336, 344). These pending objections and motion

3

are accordingly denied as moot.

4

It is further ordered that this case will remain closed. The Court will not entertain

5

any further filings in this closed case and will indeed summarily deny any subsequent

6

motions filed under this case number regarding the Settlement Agreement.

7

DATED THIS 6th Day of October 2021.

8
9
10

MIRANDA M. DU
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3