Carpenters Health and Security Trust of Western Washington v. Julius-Stewart Construction Services LLC

W.D. Washington

Carpenters Health and Security Trust of Western Washington v. Julius-Stewart Construction Services LLC

DecidedNovember 20, 2020

Docket2:19-cv-01152

StatusUnknown

This text of Carpenters Health and Security Trust of Western Washington v. Julius-Stewart Construction Services LLC (Carpenters Health and Security Trust of Western Washington v. Julius-Stewart Construction Services LLC) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, W.D. Washington primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Carpenters Health and Security Trust of Western Washington v. Julius-Stewart Construction Services LLC, (W.D. Wash. 2020).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2

3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 6 AT SEATTLE 7 CARPENTERS HEALTH AND SECURITY TRUST OF WESTERN 8 WASHINGTON, et al., 9 Plaintiffs, C19-1152 TSZ 10 v. MINUTE ORDER 11 JULIUS-STEWART CONSTRUCTION SERVICES LLC, et 12 al., 13 Defendants. 14 The following Minute Order is made by direction of the Court, the Honorable 15 Thomas S. Zilly, United States District Judge: (1) Having reviewed Plaintiffs’ Motion to Reopen Case and for Entry of 16 Judgment by Confession, docket no. 6, the Court DIRECTS Plaintiff to file additional briefing, not to exceed five (5) pages, on whether the Court now has jurisdiction over this 17 matter in light of Plaintiffs’ Notice of Voluntary Dismissal, docket no. 5. See Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of America, 511 U.S. 375, 381–82 (1994) (holding 18 that the district court did not have inherent power to enforce terms of settlement agreement under doctrine of ancillary jurisdiction); accord In re Valdez Fisheries Dev. 19 Ass’n, Inc., 439 F.3d 545, 549 (9th Cir. 2006) (noting that even when a case is dismissed under Rule 41(a)(2), which requires a court order, enforcement of the settlement 20 agreement is for state courts in the absence of a specific retention of jurisdiction); see also Comm. Space Mgmt. Co. v. Boeing Co., 193 F.3d 1074, 1078 (9th Cir. 1999) (“[I]t is 21 beyond debate that a dismissal under Rule 41(a)(1) is effective on filing, no court order is required, the parties are left as though no action had been brought, . . . and the district 22 1 court lacks jurisdiction to do anything about it.”). Plaintiffs’ supplemental brief shall be filed on or before Friday, December 4, 2020. Absent a timely response to this Minute 2 Order, the motion shall be DENIED without prejudice. 3 (2) The Clerk is directed to send a copy of this Minute Order to all counsel of record. 4 Dated this 20th day of November, 2020. 5 William M. McCool 6 Clerk 7 s/Gail Glass Deputy Clerk 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

1 2

3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 6 AT SEATTLE 7 CARPENTERS HEALTH AND SECURITY TRUST OF WESTERN 8 WASHINGTON, et al., 9 Plaintiffs, C19-1152 TSZ 10 v. MINUTE ORDER 11 JULIUS-STEWART CONSTRUCTION SERVICES LLC, et 12 al., 13 Defendants. 14 The following Minute Order is made by direction of the Court, the Honorable 15 Thomas S. Zilly, United States District Judge: (1) Having reviewed Plaintiffs’ Motion to Reopen Case and for Entry of 16 Judgment by Confession, docket no. 6, the Court DIRECTS Plaintiff to file additional briefing, not to exceed five (5) pages, on whether the Court now has jurisdiction over this 17 matter in light of Plaintiffs’ Notice of Voluntary Dismissal, docket no. 5. See Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of America, 511 U.S. 375, 381–82 (1994) (holding 18 that the district court did not have inherent power to enforce terms of settlement agreement under doctrine of ancillary jurisdiction); accord In re Valdez Fisheries Dev. 19 Ass’n, Inc., 439 F.3d 545, 549 (9th Cir. 2006) (noting that even when a case is dismissed under Rule 41(a)(2), which requires a court order, enforcement of the settlement 20 agreement is for state courts in the absence of a specific retention of jurisdiction); see also Comm. Space Mgmt. Co. v. Boeing Co., 193 F.3d 1074, 1078 (9th Cir. 1999) (“[I]t is 21 beyond debate that a dismissal under Rule 41(a)(1) is effective on filing, no court order is required, the parties are left as though no action had been brought, . . . and the district 22 1 court lacks jurisdiction to do anything about it.”). Plaintiffs’ supplemental brief shall be filed on or before Friday, December 4, 2020. Absent a timely response to this Minute 2 Order, the motion shall be DENIED without prejudice. 3 (2) The Clerk is directed to send a copy of this Minute Order to all counsel of record. 4 Dated this 20th day of November, 2020. 5 William M. McCool 6 Clerk 7 s/Gail Glass Deputy Clerk 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Carpenters Health and Security Trust of Western Washington v. Julius-Stewart Construction Services LLC, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/carpenters-health-and-security-trust-of-western-washington-v-wawd-2020.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack