Amador v. Sun

• Court: District Court, N.D. California
• Decided: April 12, 2023
• Docket: 5:22-cv-00569
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 EMMANUEL AMADOR, Case No. 22-cv-00569-SVK

8 Plaintiff, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AS TO 9 v. SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION AND AS TO WHY THE EX PARTE 10 JANE V. SUN, et al., APPLICATION SHOULD NOT BE DENIED 11 Defendants. Re: Dkt. Nos. 40, 41 12

13 The Court is in receipt of Plaintiff’s ex parte application for entry of stipulated judgment. 14 Dkt. 40. This action was terminated in October 2022 when the Parties stipulated to a conditional 15 dismissal of the action without prejudice and presented a proposed order of dismissal to the Court, 16 which the Court issued. Dkts. 33-34. Under the terms of the order, the dismissal would become 17 final and with prejudice automatically within six months unless Plaintiff gave notice of 18 Defendants’ failure to perform pursuant to the settlement agreement ten days prior to the 19 expiration of the six-month period. Dkt. 34. On November 4, 2022, however, Plaintiff filed a 20 stipulation for dismissal with prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 21 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), which the Court approved. Dkts. 35-36. 22 Although the written settlement agreement apparently contemplated that the Court would 23 retain jurisdiction for purposes of enforcing its terms, the terms of the agreement were not 24 incorporated into any order. Dkt. 40-2 (Ex. 1 to Johnson Decl., Settlement Agreement) ¶¶ 5-6; 25 Dkts. 33-36. Nor did the first dismissal order or the second stipulated dismissal with prejudice 26 provide that the Court would retain jurisdiction to enforce the settlement agreement. Dkts. 33-36. 27 “Federal courts have no inherent power to enforce settlement agreements entered into by parties 1 litigating before them. Rather, courts have ancillary jurisdiction to enforce a settlement 2 agreement” in limited instances. K.C. ex rel. Erica C. v. Torlakson, 762 F.3d 963, 967 (9th Cir. 3 2014). A district court may only maintain ancillary jurisdiction if the order dismissing the case 4 || with prejudice “if the parties’ obligation to comply with the terms of the settlement agreement 5 ha[s] been made part of the order of dismissal—either by separate provision (such as a provision 6 ‘retaining jurisdiction’ over the settlement agreement) or by incorporating the terms of the 7 settlement agreement in the order.” Jd. (quoting Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 8 || U.S. 375, 381 (1994)). Accordingly, Plaintiff is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE in writing by 9 May 2, 2023, why the Court has jurisdiction to hear his application. 10 Additionally, it appears that Defendant Cars On Demand, LLC cured its default under the 11 settlement agreement in response to Plaintiffs notices and that only one outstanding payment 12 || remains. Dkt. 41. Plaintiff, therefore, shall also SHOW CAUSE in writing by May 2, 2023, why 13 his application should not be denied. 14 The Parties shall appear for a hearing on this matter on May 9, 2023, at 10:00 a.m. If the 3 15 Parties resolve these outstanding issues among themselves, Plaintiff may file a notice of a 16 || withdrawal of his application by May 2, 2023, in which case the Parties need not appear for a 3 17 hearing. 18 SO ORDERED. 19 || Dated: April 12, 2023 20 21 Seam yal 7 SUSAN VAN KEULEN United States Magistrate Judge 23 24 25 26 27 28