Ryan House v. Ryan's House For Youth

Filing 46

ORDER denying Plaintiff's 40 Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement, signed by Judge Robert S. Lasnik. (SWT)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

6
7
8
9
10
11
12

_______________________________________
)
RYAN HOUSE,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
v.
)
)
RYAN’S HOUSE FOR YOUTH,
)
)
Defendant.
)
_______________________________________)

No. C16-1404RSL
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO
ENFORCE SETTLEMENT

13
14

This trademark litigation was resolved by a settlement agreement and stipulation of

15

dismissal in July 2017. Dkt. # 39. In the settlement agreement, the parties agreed that “[t]he U.S.

16

District Court for the Western District of Washington will retain jurisdiction to enforce

17

compliance with this Agreement.” Dkt. # 39 at 6. A corresponding statement was included in the

18

stipulation dismissing the case. Dkt. # 39 at 1. The Court did not, however, enter an order of

19

dismissal or otherwise incorporate the settlement terms or the retention of jurisdiction into an

20

order.

21

On December 8, 2017, plaintiff filed a “Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement,”

22

asserting that defendant had failed to remove an infringing reference from its website after

23

numerous notifications. Dkt. # 40 (replaced by Dkt. # 43-1). Despite the parties’ manifest

24

intention to have this dispute resolved in federal court, the Court lacks subject matter

25

jurisdiction.

26
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO
ENFORCE SETTLEMENT

1
2
3
4
5
6

Federal courts “have no inherent power to enforce settlement agreements entered
into by parties litigating before them.” Arata v. Nu Skin Int’l, Inc., 96 F.3d 1265,
1268 (9th Cir.1996) (citing Kokkonen [v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S.
375, 378 (1994).] Rather, courts have ancillary jurisdiction to enforce a settlement
agreement only “if the parties’ obligation to comply with the terms of the
settlement agreement ha[s] been made part of the order of dismissal . . . .”
Kokkonen, 511 U.S. at 381 . . . . In the event the settlement agreement is breached,
the court would have ancillary jurisdiction that arises from breach of the court's
dismissal order. Id. . . . .

7

K.C. ex rel. Erica C. v. Torlakson, 762 F.3d 963, 967 (9th Cir. 2014) (emphasis added). In this

8

case there is no court order to enforce, and the parties cannot create subject matter jurisdiction

9

by consent. Mitchell v. Maurer, 293 U.S. 237, 244 (1934) (“lack of federal jurisdiction cannot be

10

waived or be overcome by an agreement of the parties.”).

11
12
13

Plaintiff’s motion to enforce the settlement agreement is therefore DENIED because the
Court lacks the power to hear this dispute.

14
15

Dated this 2nd day of February, 2018.

16

A

17

Robert S. Lasnik
United States District Judge

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO
ENFORCE SETTLEMENT

-2-