(PC) Tate v. Andres

Opinion

Derek Tate, No. 2:18-cv-00822-KJM-AC Plaintiff, ORDER v. J. Anders, 1S Defendant. The parties reached an agreement to settle plaintiff Derek Tate’s claims, and the case was dismissed by the parties’ stipulation. See Stip., ECF No. 108; Clerk’s Not. Dismissal, ECF No. 109. In 2024, Tate moved to “re-open” the settlement proceedings based on his argument that the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation had wrongly deducted fees and restitution payments from his inmate trust account. ECF No. 110. This court did not retain jurisdiction over the enforcement of the settlement agreement, and the parties identify no basis for this court to assert jurisdiction over their current dispute. The motion at ECF No. 110 is therefore denied for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 382 (1994) (“[E]nforcement of the settlement agreement is for state courts, unless there is some independent basis for federal jurisdiction.”). DATED: February 26, 2025.