(PC) Brown v. Hernandez

E.D. California

(PC) Brown v. Hernandez

DecidedFebruary 28, 2025

Docket2:24-cv-01366

StatusUnknown

This text of (PC) Brown v. Hernandez ((PC) Brown v. Hernandez) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

(PC) Brown v. Hernandez, (E.D. Cal. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 TERENCE BROWN, No. 2:24-cv-1366 CSK P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 DANIEL HERNANDEZ, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff has filed two motions to re-open this closed case based on complications from his 18 mental illness and allegations that he was intimidated into settling the case. ECF Nos. 22, 23. 19 On January 7, 2025, the parties filed a stipulation for voluntary dismissal of this action 20 with prejudice that was signed by plaintiff and counsel for defendants. ECF No. 20. The case 21 was closed the following day pursuant to the parties’ stipulation. ECF No. 21. Unless the 22 “parties’ obligation to comply with the terms of [a] settlement agreement [are] made part of the 23 order of dismissal—either by separate provision (such as a provision ‘retaining jurisdiction’ over 24 the settlement agreement) or by incorporating the terms of the settlement agreement in the order,” 25 then “enforcement of the settlement agreement is for state courts, unless there is some 26 independent basis for federal jurisdiction.” Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 27 375, 381-82 (1994). This analysis also holds true for “an effort to undo rather than to enforce a 28 settlement agreement.” Camacho v. City of San Luis, 359 F. App’x 794, 798 (9th Cir. 2009) 1 |} (citing Kokkonen, 511 U.S. 375)). 2 Here, the stipulation for dismissal does not incorporate the terms of the settlement 3 || agreement or provide that this court retains jurisdiction over the matter (ECF No. 20), nor does 4 || there appear to be any independent basis for federal jurisdiction. Accordingly, this court lacks 5 || jurisdiction. 6 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 7 1. This court lacks jurisdiction over plaintiffs motions to rescind the settlement 8 || agreement and re-open the case (ECF Nos. 22, 23) and the Clerk of the Court is directed to 9 || STRIKE the motions as improper filings. 10 2. No further filings shall be accepted in this closed case. 11 | DATED: February 27, 2025 ~ Cttt0 Lhar—e_ 2 ALLISONCLAIRE. 13 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

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

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 TERENCE BROWN, No. 2:24-cv-1366 CSK P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 DANIEL HERNANDEZ, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff has filed two motions to re-open this closed case based on complications from his 18 mental illness and allegations that he was intimidated into settling the case. ECF Nos. 22, 23. 19 On January 7, 2025, the parties filed a stipulation for voluntary dismissal of this action 20 with prejudice that was signed by plaintiff and counsel for defendants. ECF No. 20. The case 21 was closed the following day pursuant to the parties’ stipulation. ECF No. 21. Unless the 22 “parties’ obligation to comply with the terms of [a] settlement agreement [are] made part of the 23 order of dismissal—either by separate provision (such as a provision ‘retaining jurisdiction’ over 24 the settlement agreement) or by incorporating the terms of the settlement agreement in the order,” 25 then “enforcement of the settlement agreement is for state courts, unless there is some 26 independent basis for federal jurisdiction.” Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 27 375, 381-82 (1994). This analysis also holds true for “an effort to undo rather than to enforce a 28 settlement agreement.” Camacho v. City of San Luis, 359 F. App’x 794, 798 (9th Cir. 2009) 1 |} (citing Kokkonen, 511 U.S. 375)). 2 Here, the stipulation for dismissal does not incorporate the terms of the settlement 3 || agreement or provide that this court retains jurisdiction over the matter (ECF No. 20), nor does 4 || there appear to be any independent basis for federal jurisdiction. Accordingly, this court lacks 5 || jurisdiction. 6 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 7 1. This court lacks jurisdiction over plaintiffs motions to rescind the settlement 8 || agreement and re-open the case (ECF Nos. 22, 23) and the Clerk of the Court is directed to 9 || STRIKE the motions as improper filings. 10 2. No further filings shall be accepted in this closed case. 11 | DATED: February 27, 2025 ~ Cttt0 Lhar—e_ 2 ALLISONCLAIRE. 13 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

(PC) Brown v. Hernandez, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pc-brown-v-hernandez-caed-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack