1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8

9

10 SCOTT JOHNSON, No. C 18-07607 WHA 11 Plaintiff,

12 v.

ORDER DENYING EX PARTE 13 CLAUDIA CHATHA; APPLICATION FOR ENTRY OF SURINDER CHATHA; and DOES 1-10, JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO 14 STIPULATION FOR ENTRY OF Defendants. JUDGMENT 15

16 17 Plaintiff commenced this action in December 2018 under the Americans With 18 Disabilities Act and the Unruh Civil Rights Act for damages and injunctive relief. The 19 complaint alleged one or more architectural barriers. Parties stipulated to dismissal pursuant to 20 Rule 41(a)(1)(ii) in September 2019. Parties’ settlement apparently called for monthly 21 installment payments. According to plaintiff, defendant ceased paying in February 2021, and 22 on May 11, 2021, plaintiff moved ex parte for entry of stipulated judgment. 23 District courts’ jurisdiction over actions expire after stipulated dismissal. See FRCP 24 41(a)(1)(ii). When dismissal occurs pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(ii), a district court may 25 incorporate the settlement agreement in the order. Or a district court may retain jurisdiction 26 over the settlement with consent of the parties. See Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of 27 America,

, 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. 6 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. 8 9 Dated: June 8, 2021. 10 11 = LIAM ALSUP 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

© 15 16

= 17

Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28