Garrison v. Wood

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: February 9, 2021
• Docket: 3:19-cv-00188
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 ARTHUR LEE GARRISON, 4 3:19-cv-0188-MMD-CLB Plaintiffs, 5 v. ORDER 6 WOOD, et al.,

7 Defendants. 8

9 Plaintiff’s motion (ECF No. 38) which the defendants have construed as a motion to 10 enforce settlement agreement is DENIED. The defendants have shown in their response 11 that they have complied with the settlement agreement (ECF No. 39). If plaintiff believes that 12 a breach of contract has occurred, he may choose to file an action in state court. Kokkonen 13 v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of America, 511 U.S. 375 (1994). 14 In Kokkonen, the Supreme Court held that federal courts do not have inherent or 15 ancillary jurisdiction to enforce a settlement agreement merely because the subject of the 16 settlement was a federal lawsuit. Id. at 381. The Court stated that ancillary jurisdiction is 17 general permissible under two circumstances: A(1) to permit disposition by a single court of 18 claims that are, in varying respects and degrees, factually interdependent; and (2) to enable 19 a court to function successfully, that is, to manage its proceedings, vindicate its authority, and effectuate its decrees.@ Id. at 379-80 (internal citations omitted). As to the first 20 circumstance, the Court found that it would not be particularly efficient for a federal court to 21 exercise jurisdiction over what is essentially a breach of contract claim because the facts 22 underlying the breach of a settlement agreement Ahave nothing to do with@ the facts of the 23 underlying case. Id. at 380. 24 As to the second circumstance, the Court held that a federal court has ancillary 25 jurisdiction to enforce a settlement agreement Aif the parties= obligation to comply with the 26 terms of the settlement agreement had been made part of the order of dismissal B either by 27 1 |!separate provision (such as a provision “retaining jurisdiction” over the settlemen 2 || agreement) or by incorporating the terms of the settlement agreement into the order.” /d.a 3 ||381. Jurisdiction exists in such a case because a breach of the settlement agreement 4 || violates a court order. Mallard Automotive Group Ltd. v. United States, 343 F.Supp.2d 949, 5, || 955 (D. Nev. 2004) citing Kokkonen, 511 U.S. at 375. If the federal court has no independen 6 jurisdiction over the settlement agreement, and absent making the settlement agreement pa 7 of the dismissal order, enforcement of the agreement is for the state courts. Mallard, 34 8 F.Supp.2d at 955. 9 Defendants’ motion to seal Exhibits 1 and 2 which are plaintiff's medical records (ECF 10 No. 40) is GRANTED.

1 DATED: February 9, 2021. » 12 13 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27