Opinion

(PC) Brown v. Hernandez

Court
District Court, E.D. California
Filed
Feb 28, 2025
Cited by
0 cases
Authority
More cited than 34.3%

The 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

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.