(PC) Lewis v. Ugwueze ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DARONTA TYRONE LEWIS, Case No. 1:20-cv-00596-SAB (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO ENFORCE THE SETTLEMENT 13 v. AGREEMENT 14 DR. KOKOR, (ECF No. 186). 15 Defendants. 16 17 18 Daronta Tyrone Lewis is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this 19 civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On October 27, 2022, this case settled as part of a 20 global settlement.1 (See ECF No. 179). On December 1, 2022, the parties filed a joint stipulation 21 for dismissal. (ECF No. 184). On December 5, 2022, the case was closed. (ECF No. 185).2 22 On May 8, 2023, Plaintiff filed a motion to enforce the settlement agreement and for 23 sanctions. (ECF No. 186). Plaintiff alleges that payment was not received pursuant to the contract 24 terms. According to Defendant’s opposition, “[t]he release and settlement agreement specifically 25 provided that settlement payment would be processed within 180 days after Plaintiff provided the 26 27 1 The settlement conference was held before the undersigned. 2 The parties have consented to the jurisdiction of the United States Magistrate Judge. (ECF Nos. 28 149, 150, 155) 1 | signed release and other settlement documents.” (ECF No. 188, p. 2). The declaration of 2 | Defendant’s counsel states that “[t]he settlement coordinator returned the signed documents on 3 | November 14, 2022. The settlement coordinator indicated that Plaintiff had signed the documents 4 | that morning.” (ECF No. 188-1, p. 2). On May 22, 2023, Defendant’s counsel “received an e-mail 5 | indicating that the settlement payments were paid on May 11, 2023.” (/d.) Plaintiffs response 6 nonetheless asserts a claim for breach of contract and asks for sanctions. (ECF No. 189). Plaintiff 7 contends that the settlement payments were late because they should have been made 180-days 8 out from the date of the settlement conference. (/d., p. 2). 9 The Court will deny Plaintiff's motion. Federal courts do not ordinarily retain jurisdiction to enforce settlement agreements. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 378 (1994) (“Enforcement of the settlement agreement, however whether through award of damages or decree of specific performance, is more than just a continuation or renewal of the dismissed 2 suit, and hence requires its own basis for jurisdiction.”); Alavaradov. Table Mountain Racnheria, 13 509 F.3d 1008, 1017 (9th Cir. 2007) (“Specifically, a federal court has jurisdiction to enforce a settlement agreement in a dismissed case when the dismissal order incorporates the settlement 15 terms, or the court has retained jurisdiction over the settlement contract.”). Although it is possible 16 | to do so, the order dismissing this case did not retain jurisdiction over the parties’ settlement 17 | agreement. (See ECF No. 185). 18 Moreover, the Court has received confirmation that payment has now been made pursuant 19 | to the deadline established by the parties’ release and settlement agreement. 20 Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion to enforce settlement and request 21 | for sanctions (ECF No. 186) is DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED. 22 23 | Dated: _ July 13, 2023 hey — UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 25 26 27 28