Stone v. Accelerated Engineering Services, Inc.

E.D. California

Stone v. Accelerated Engineering Services, Inc.

District Court, E.D. California·Decided August 3, 2022·No. 2:20-cv-00554·Unknown

Opinion

Timothy Stone, Case No. 2:20-cv-00554-KJM-KJN Plaintiff, ORDER v. Accelerated Engineering Services, Inc., et al., 1S Defendants. Plaintiff Timothy Stone moves to enforce a settlement agreement against defendants Accelerated Engineering Services, Inc., Sierra Elizabeth Schneider, and Daniel Cotrone. Mot., ECF No. 21. Defendants have not responded to the motion. As explained below, the court denies the motion for lack of subject matter Jurisdiction. Mr. Stone filed the notice of the parties’ settlement on January 11, 2022. ECF No. 18. The then-presiding judge ordered the parties to file dispositional documents closing this case no later than February 28, 2022. ECF No. 19. On February 28, 2022, Mr. Stone filed a status report stating that defendants have not performed their settlement obligations and that he does not intend to dismiss this action until defendants fulfill their obligations. See ECF No. 20. Mr. Stone, however, did not seek an extension of the time for filing the dispositional documents. As of today, the parties still have not filed the dispositional documents. Instead, Mr. Stone filed this

motion to enforce the settlement terms against defendants. See Mot. The court submitted the matter without oral argument. ECF No. 24. The court has the discretion to decline to maintain jurisdiction to enforce the parties’ agreement. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 381 (1994); cf Collins v. Thompson, 8 F.3d 657, 659 (9th Cir. 1993). Unless there is some independent basis for federal jurisdiction, enforcement of the agreement is for state courts. /d. at 382. Here, there is no such independent basis and the parties’ agreement provides that state courts may enforce and interpret the agreement. See ECF No. 21-3, Settlement and Mutual Release Agreement, 12. The court declines to maintain jurisdiction to enforce the parties’ settlement agreement and denies Mr. Stone’s motion. The parties are ordered to file the dispositional documents closing this case within fourteen days from the date of this order and are cautioned that failure to so will result in the dismissal of this action and possible other sanctions. This order resolves ECF No. 21. DATED: August 3, 2022. / CHIEF ED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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

Timothy Stone, Case No. 2:20-cv-00554-KJM-KJN Plaintiff, ORDER v. Accelerated Engineering Services, Inc., et al., 1S Defendants. Plaintiff Timothy Stone moves to enforce a settlement agreement against defendants Accelerated Engineering Services, Inc., Sierra Elizabeth Schneider, and Daniel Cotrone. Mot., ECF No. 21. Defendants have not responded to the motion. As explained below, the court denies the motion for lack of subject matter Jurisdiction. Mr. Stone filed the notice of the parties’ settlement on January 11, 2022. ECF No. 18. The then-presiding judge ordered the parties to file dispositional documents closing this case no later than February 28, 2022. ECF No. 19. On February 28, 2022, Mr. Stone filed a status report stating that defendants have not performed their settlement obligations and that he does not intend to dismiss this action until defendants fulfill their obligations. See ECF No. 20. Mr. Stone, however, did not seek an extension of the time for filing the dispositional documents. As of today, the parties still have not filed the dispositional documents. Instead, Mr. Stone filed this

motion to enforce the settlement terms against defendants. See Mot. The court submitted the matter without oral argument. ECF No. 24. The court has the discretion to decline to maintain jurisdiction to enforce the parties’ agreement. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 381 (1994); cf Collins v. Thompson, 8 F.3d 657, 659 (9th Cir. 1993). Unless there is some independent basis for federal jurisdiction, enforcement of the agreement is for state courts. /d. at 382. Here, there is no such independent basis and the parties’ agreement provides that state courts may enforce and interpret the agreement. See ECF No. 21-3, Settlement and Mutual Release Agreement, 12. The court declines to maintain jurisdiction to enforce the parties’ settlement agreement and denies Mr. Stone’s motion. The parties are ordered to file the dispositional documents closing this case within fourteen days from the date of this order and are cautioned that failure to so will result in the dismissal of this action and possible other sanctions. This order resolves ECF No. 21. DATED: August 3, 2022. / CHIEF ED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Stone v. Accelerated Engineering Services, Inc., (E.D. Cal. 2022).

Pincite

Stone v. Accelerated Engineering Services, Inc. (Stone v. Accelerated Engineering Services, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related