Johnson v. Chatha

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SCOTT JOHNSON,

No. C 18-07607 WHA

Plaintiff, v.

ORDER DENYING EX PARTE

CLAUDIA CHATHA; APPLICATION FOR ENTRY OF

SURINDER CHATHA; and DOES 1-10, JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO

STIPULATION FOR ENTRY OF

Defendants.

JUDGMENT

Plaintiff commenced this action in December 2018 under the Americans With Disabilities Act and the Unruh Civil Rights Act for damages and injunctive relief. The complaint alleged one or more architectural barriers. Parties stipulated to dismissal pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(ii) in September 2019. Parties’ settlement apparently called for monthly installment payments. According to plaintiff, defendant ceased paying in February 2021, and on May 11, 2021, plaintiff moved ex parte for entry of stipulated judgment.

District courts’ jurisdiction over actions expire after stipulated dismissal. See FRCP 41(a)(1)(ii). When dismissal occurs pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(ii), a district court may incorporate the settlement agreement in the order. Or a district court may retain jurisdiction over the settlement with consent of the parties. See Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of America, 511 U.S. 375, 381–82 (1994). Absent such action, district courts lack jurisdiction 1 Parties’ stipulation for dismissal did not attach or mention the settlement agreement. Nor 2 did parties request that we retain jurisdiction to enforce the settlement. Therefore, the prior 3 order herein dismissing the action did not retain jurisdiction, and we now lack it (Dkt. No. 38). 4 The motion is DENIED. Any enforcement of the settlement agreement must be brought as a 5 new action in state court or, if jurisdiction can be shown, in federal court.

7 IT IS SO ORDERED.

9 Dated: June 8, 2021.

=

LIAM ALSUP

12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

©

= 17

Z 18