Opinion
No. CIV S-05-1873 MCE GGH P.
April 22, 2011
ORDER
On July 7, 2010, counsel for the parties filed a stipulation for voluntary dismissal of this action with prejudice, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), which closed this case. Some nine months later, plaintiff pro se has filed a motion/request for the court to enforce the settlement agreement. Plaintiff includes a copy of a copy of the settlement agreement showing signatures of both himself and his counsel. Motion, pp. 3-6. By his motion, plaintiff pro se alleges that defendants have only paid him $1,127.71 of the $1200.00 which he is owed, pursuant to the settlement agreement, leaving a shortfall of $72.79 [sic]. Id. at 1-3, 9.
Plaintiff provides no basis for the court's continuing jurisdiction in this matter and the court's review of the settlement agreement plaintiff provides indicates therein no provision for a basis for the court's continued jurisdiction.O'Connor v. Colvin, 70 F.3d 530, 531 (9th Cir. 1995), citingKokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of America, 511 U.S. 375, 114 S. Ct. 1673, 1676-77 (1994), stated:
[T]he Supreme Court held that federal courts do not have inherent or ancillary jurisdiction to enforce a settlement agreement simply because the subject of that settlement was a federal lawsuit. When the initial action is dismissed, federal jurisdiction terminates. Id. A motion to enforce the settlement agreement, then, is a separate contract dispute requiring its own independent basis for jurisdiction. Id.
Plaintiff's motion will be denied.
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that plaintiff's motion to enforce the settlement agreement, filed on April 8, 2011 (docket # 175), is denied.