Von Tobel v. Johns

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: March 2, 2023
• Docket: 3:17-cv-00022
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 * * *

4 GERALD VON TOBEL, Case No. 3:17-CV-00022-RCJ-CLB

5 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS, 6 v. MOTION TO SUPPLEMENT, AND SECOND MOTION FOR SANCTIONS, 7 DR. JOHNS, et. al., AND GRANTING MOTION TO SEAL

8 Defendants. [ECF Nos. 110, 112, 114, 116]

9 10 This case involves a civil rights action filed by Plaintiff Gerald Von Tobel (“Von 11 Tobel”) against Defendant Marsha Johns (“Johns”). Currently pending before the Court 12 are several motions filed by Von Tobel related to the settlement in this case. Von Tobel 13 filed a motion for leave to file a request for sanctions for non-compliance with the 14 settlement agreement, (ECF No. 110). Johns opposed the motion (ECF Nos. 115, 117)1. 15 No reply was filed. Von Tobel also filed two motions to supplement the original motion, 16 (ECF Nos. 112, 114). 17 I. DISCUSSION 18 On December 12, 2022, the Court was notified that the parties had reached a 19

20 1 Johns filed a motion for leave to file Exhibit C to the response under seal based on it containing confidential institutional and medical information. (ECF No. 116.) When the 21 documents proposed for sealing are “more than tangentially related” to the merits of the 22 case, the Court applies the compelling reasons standard to determine whether sealing is appropriate. See Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1099 (9th Cir. 23 2016). Under the compelling reasons standard, “a court may seal records only when it finds ‘a compelling reason and articulate[s] the factual basis for its ruling, without relying 24 on hypothesis or conjecture.’” United States v. Carpenter, 923 F.3d 1172, 1179 (9th Cir. 2019) (quoting Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 1096-97) (alteration in original). Here, the 25 referenced exhibits contains Plaintiff’s sensitive health information, as well as confidential 26 institutional information. Balancing the need for the public’s access to information regarding medical treatment against the need to maintain the confidentiality of the 27 information weighs in favor of sealing these exhibits. Accordingly, the Court finds compelling reasons exist to seal the document, and thus the motion, (ECF No. 116), is 1 settlement in this case and were ordered to file a stipulation and order to dismiss by no 2 later than December 31, 2022. (ECF No. 100.) On January 10, 2023, the Court issued 3 an order directing the parties to appear for a status conference as no stipulation had 4 been submitted. (ECF No. 102.) The Court noted that the status conference would be 5 vacated should the parties file a stipulation and order to dismiss prior to the hearing date. 6 (Id.) On January 17, 2023, the parties filed their stipulation to dismiss, (ECF No. 104), 7 which was granted the same day (ECF No. 106).2 On February 8, 2023, Von Tobel filed 8 the instant motion for leave to file a request for sanctions for non-compliance with the 9 settlement agreement. (ECF No. 110.) Von Tobel also filed two supplements to his 10 motion, which he claims detail ongoing constitutional violations by Defendant. (ECF Nos. 11 112, 114.) The Court interprets the motion as one to enforce the settlement. 12 “Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction” and possess only the power 13 authorized by the Constitution and United States statutes. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life 14 Ins. Co. of America, 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). This power cannot be expanded by 15 judicial order. Id. (citing Am. Fire & Casualty Co. v. Finn, 341 U.S. 6 (1951)). It is well- 16 settled there is a presumption a cause of action lies outside the federal court’s 17 jurisdiction, and that the party asserting jurisdiction has the burden of establishing it. 18 Kokkonen, 511 U.S. at 377. Federal courts must have either an independent 19 (constitutional or statutory) basis for jurisdiction over a cause of action, or jurisdiction 20 pursuant to the court’s inherent powers or ancillary jurisdiction. Id. at 377-78. 21 In Kokkonen, the Supreme Court held federal courts do not have inherent or 22 ancillary jurisdiction to enforce a settlement agreement merely because the subject of 23 the settlement was a federal lawsuit. Id. at 381. The Court stated ancillary jurisdiction is 24 generally permissible under two circumstances: “(1) to permit disposition by a single 25 court of claims that are, in varying respects and degrees, factually interdependent; and 26 (2) to enable a court to function successfully, that is, to manage its proceedings, vindicate 27 2 While the case was administratively closed, it does not appear judgment was ever 1 its authority, and effectuate its decrees.” Id. at 379-80 (internal citations omitted). As to 2 the first circumstance, the Court found it would not be particularly efficient for a federal 3 court to exercise jurisdiction over what is essentially a breach of contract claim because 4 the facts underlying the breach of a settlement agreement “have nothing to do with” the 5 facts of the underlying case. Id. at 380. 6 As to the second circumstance, the Court held a federal court has ancillary 7 jurisdiction to enforce a settlement agreement if the parties’ obligation to comply with the 8 terms of the settlement agreement had been made part of the order of dismissal either 9 by separate provision (such as a provision “retaining jurisdiction” over the settlement 10 agreement), or by incorporating the terms of the settlement agreement into the order. Id. 11 at 381; K.C. ex rel. Erica C. v. Torlakson, 762 F.3d 963, 967 (9th Cir. 2014). Jurisdiction 12 exists in such a case because a breach of the settlement agreement violates a court 13 order. Kelly v. Wengler, 822 F.3d 1085, 1094 (9th Cir. 2016) (citing Kokkonen, 511 U.S. 14 at 381). If the federal court has no independent jurisdiction over the settlement 15 agreement, and absent making the settlement agreement part of the dismissal order, 16 enforcement of the agreement is for the state courts. See In re Valdez Fisheries Dev. 17 Ass’n, Inc., 439 F.3d 545, 549 (9th Cir. 2006) (holding that when a bankruptcy court had 18 “entered an order approving the settlement agreement and a second order dismissing 19 the case, . . . stating that ‘[t]he conditions of the settlement hav[e] been fulfilled’” it did 20 not retain jurisdiction over the settlement agreement, nor did it incorporate ‘the parties’ 21 obligation to comply with [its] terms’”). “Mere awareness and approval of the terms of the 22 settlement agreement” by the judge are not enough to make the settlement agreement 23 part of the dismissal order. Kokkonen, 511 U.S. at 381. 24 Neither of the factors identified in Kokkonen apply in this case. Therefore, this 25 Court lacks jurisdiction to enforce the settlement agreement and must deny the motions. 26 (ECF Nos. 110, 112, 114.) Further, to the extent Von Tobel seeks sanctions for alleged 27 non-compliance with the settlement agreement, the Court is again without jurisdiction to 1 Finally, even if the Court had jurisdiction to enforce the settlement agreement, it 2 appears Von Tobel’s motions are moot as Defendants have submitted evidence that Von 3 Tobel is scheduled for the medical appointment contemplated in the settlement 4} agreement. (See ECF No. 117 (sealed).) Therefore, there is nothing further for the Court 5 | to enforce from the settlement agreement nor is there any basis to impose sanctions. I CONCLUSION 7 Consistent with the above, IT IS ORDERED that Von Tobel’s motion for leave to 8 | file a request for sanctions, and supplemental motions, (ECF Nos. 110, 112, 114), are 9| DENIED. 10 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the motion to seal, (ECF No. 116), is GRANTED. 11 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court ENTER JUDGMENT in 12 accordance with the order dismissing this action with prejudice, (ECF No. 106). 13 IT IS SO ORDERED. 44| DATED: March 2, 2023 ‘

15 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28