# (PC) Brown v. Hernandez

> District Court, E.D. California · February 28, 2025

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10814890

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, E.D. California
- **Decided:** February 28, 2025
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10814890

## Opinion text

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

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10814890. Public record. Not legal advice.