(PC) Brackett v. Anderson

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 Demond Charles Brackett, No. 2:21-cv-02282-KJM-JDP 12 Plaintiff, ORDER 13 v. Wendell Anderson, et al., 1S Defendants. 16 17 The parties previously stipulated to the dismissal of this action with prejudice after they 18 | reached a settlement agreement. See Not. Settlement, ECF No. 88; Stip., ECF No. 89. The court 19 | dismissed the action and closed the case without retaining jurisdiction. Min. Order, ECF No. 90. 20 | Plaintiff now alleges defendants have violated the settlement agreement. ECF No. 91. The court 21 | construes that notice as a motion to enforce the settlement agreement. Absent an independent 22 | basis of federal subject matter jurisdiction, the enforcement of the settlement agreement is for the 23 | state courts. See Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 381 (1994). The 24 | notice at ECF No. 91, construed as a motion to enforce, is therefore denied for lack of 25 | jurisdiction. 26 IT IS SO ORDERED. 27 DATED: March 4, 2025. Agile 28 ae . □□□ STATES DISTRICT JUDGE