Garrison v. Wood

Opinion

3 ARTHUR LEE GARRISON, 4 Case No.: 3:19-cv-0188-MMD-CLB Plaintiff, 5 v. ORDER 6 WOOD, et al., 7 Defendants. 8 9 Currently before the court are two motions filed by Plaintiff Arthur Lee Garrison: (1) 10 a “motion to resend or revoke consider as judge ordered”; (ECF No. 46); and (2) a 11 “motion to produce whole medical file to allow judge to exam and properly rule on the 12 revoking of cases.” (ECF No. 48). For the reasons stated below, the court denies both 13 motions. (ECF Nos. 46, 48). 14 On August 25, 2020, the parties entered into a binding settlement agreement to 15 resolve this case. (ECF No. 25). The binding terms of that settlement were placed on 16 the record following the settlement conference. On September 3, 2020, the parties 17 filed a stipulation to dismiss this case with prejudice. (ECF No. 27). This stipulation was 18 accepted by the court and the case was dismissed, with prejudice, on September 8, 19 2020. (ECF No. 28). The court construes Plaintiff’s first motion, (ECF No. 46), as a motion to 20 enforce settlement agreement. However, as this case has been dismissed with prejudice, 21 this court no longer has jurisdiction over this case to either enforce or to revoke the 22 terms of the settlement agreement entered between the parties. In Kokkonen v. 23 Guardian Life Ins. Co. of America, the Supreme Court held that federal courts do not 24 have inherent or ancillary jurisdiction to enforce a settlement agreement merely because 25 the subject of the settlement was a federal lawsuit. 511 U.S. 375, 381 (1994). The Court 26 stated that ancillary jurisdiction is general permissible under two circumstances: A(1) to 27 permit disposition by a single court 1 of claims that are, in varying respects and degrees, factually interdependent; and (2) to 2 enable a court to function successfully, that is, to manage its proceedings, vindicate its 3 authority, and effectuate its decrees.@ Id. at 379-80 (internal citations omitted). As to the 4 first circumstance, the Court found that it would not be particularly efficient for a federal 5 court to exercise jurisdiction over what is essentially a breach of contract claim because the facts underlying the breach of a settlement agreement Ahave nothing to do with@ the 6 facts of the underlying case. Id. at 380. 7 As to the second circumstance, the Court held that a federal court has ancillary 8 jurisdiction to enforce a settlement agreement Aif the parties= obligation to comply with the 9 terms of the settlement agreement had been made part of the order of dismissal B either 10 by separate provision (such as a provision Aretaining jurisdiction@ over the settlement 11 agreement) or by incorporating the terms of the settlement agreement into the order.@ Id. 12 at 381. Jurisdiction exists in such a case because a breach of the settlement agreement 13 violates a court order. Mallard Automotive Group Ltd. v. United States, 343 F.Supp.2d 949, 14 955 (D. Nev. 2004) citing Kokkonen, 511 U.S. at 375. If the federal court has no 15 independent jurisdiction over the settlement agreement, and absent making the settlement 16 agreement part of the dismissal order, enforcement of the agreement is for the state courts. 17 Mallard, 343 F.Supp.2d at 955. 18 Here, neither circumstance described in Kokkonen applies in this case. 19 Therefore, the court no longer has jurisdiction over the enforcement and/or breach of the 20 settlement agreement. Therefore, Plaintiff’s motion to enforce must be denied and Plaintiff’s 21 motion to produce his medical file must also be denied because it is moot. 22 If Plaintiff believes that a breach of contract has occurred, he may choose to file 23 an action in state court. Plaintiff shall not file any further motions related to enforcing 24 the settlement agreement entered in this case. 25 /// 26 /// 27 1 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion to Resend or Revoke 2 || Consider as Judge Ordered, (ECF No. 46), be DENIED; and, 3 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion to Produce Whole Medical File 4 to Allow Judge to Exam and Properly Rule on the Revoking of Cases, (ECF No. 48), be 5 || DENIED as moot. 6 ; DATED: April 30, 2021.

9 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27