Stone v. Accelerated Engineering Services, Inc. ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 | Timothy Stone, Case No. 2:20-cv-00554-KJM-KJN 12 Plaintiff, ORDER 13 v. 14 Accelerated Engineering Services, Inc., et al., 1S Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff Timothy Stone moves to enforce a settlement agreement against defendants 18 | Accelerated Engineering Services, Inc., Sierra Elizabeth Schneider, and Daniel Cotrone. Mot., 19 | ECF No. 21. Defendants have not responded to the motion. As explained below, the court 20 | denies the motion for lack of subject matter Jurisdiction. 21 Mr. Stone filed the notice of the parties’ settlement on January 11, 2022. ECF No. 18. 22 | The then-presiding judge ordered the parties to file dispositional documents closing this case no 23 | later than February 28, 2022. ECF No. 19. On February 28, 2022, Mr. Stone filed a status report 24 | stating that defendants have not performed their settlement obligations and that he does not intend 25 | to dismiss this action until defendants fulfill their obligations. See ECF No. 20. Mr. Stone, 26 | however, did not seek an extension of the time for filing the dispositional documents. As of 27 | today, the parties still have not filed the dispositional documents. Instead, Mr. Stone filed this 1 | motion to enforce the settlement terms against defendants. See Mot. The court submitted the 2 | matter without oral argument. ECF No. 24. 3 The court has the discretion to decline to maintain jurisdiction to enforce the parties’ 4 | agreement. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 381 (1994); cf Collins v. 5 | Thompson, 8 F.3d 657, 659 (9th Cir. 1993). Unless there is some independent basis for federal 6 | jurisdiction, enforcement of the agreement is for state courts. /d. at 382. Here, there is no such 7 | independent basis and the parties’ agreement provides that state courts may enforce and interpret 8 | the agreement. See ECF No. 21-3, Settlement and Mutual Release Agreement, 12. 9 The court declines to maintain jurisdiction to enforce the parties’ settlement agreement 10 | and denies Mr. Stone’s motion. The parties are ordered to file the dispositional documents 11 | closing this case within fourteen days from the date of this order and are cautioned that failure to 12 | so will result in the dismissal of this action and possible other sanctions. 13 This order resolves ECF No. 21. 14 IT IS SO ORDERED. 15 DATED: August 3, 2022. / 16 CHIEF ED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 45