1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 STEVEN ERIC GOULD, Case No. 19-cv-00015-HSG

8 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING REQUEST TO ENFORCE SETTLEMENT 9 v. AGREEMENT

10 LAURIE MARINO, et al., Re: Dkt. No. 49 11 Defendants.

12 13 Plaintiff, an inmate at the Clark County Detention Center, filed this pro se civil rights 14 action pursuant to

. On April 27, 2021, the parties filed a joint stipulation for 15 voluntary dismissal stating that they had resolved the case in its entirety and stipulating to a 16 dismissal of this action with prejudice under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). Dkt. No. 45. 17 Pursuant to this stipulation, the Court closed this case. Dkt. No. 46. The parties did not request 18 that the Court retain jurisdiction to enforce the settlement agreement. Dkt. No. 45. 19 Now pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion requesting that the Court enforce the 20 settlement agreement. Dkt. No. 49. He states that he has not received payment as of September 21 22, 2021, which is 181 days after the settlement was agreed to on March 25, 2021.1 Plaintiff’s 22 request is DENIED as premature. The settlement agreement was executed on June 8, 2021, Dkt. 23 No. 50-1 at 2, so the 180-day deadline has not yet passed. 24 In addition, the Court lacks jurisdiction to enforce the settlement agreement. After 25 dismissal of a suit pursuant to settlement, unless the district court has specifically retained 26 jurisdiction, a district court lacks authority to decide any dispute arising from a settlement 27 1 agreement, e.g., a motion to enforce the agreement. A district court retains jurisdiction over a 2 settlement agreement only if (1) the order specifically states that the court retains jurisdiction, or 3 (2) the court embodies the agreement in its dismissal order. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of 4 || Am.,

(1994). The joint stipulation did not require the Court to retain 5 jurisdiction over the settlement agreement, and the Court did not issue a dismissal order 6 || embodying the agreement. The Court therefore lacks jurisdiction to enforce the settlement 7 agreement. 8 The Court DENIES Plaintiff's request for enforcement of the settlement agreement as 9 || premature and for lack of jurisdiction. 10 The Court notes that Plaintiff filed a motion to enforce the day after he believed that the 11 deadline had passed. Plaintiff is encouraged to contact Defendants’ counsel directly to attempt to 12 || resolve these issues prior to filing a motion with the Court. 13 This order terminates Dkt. No. 49. IT IS SO ORDERED. 3 15 || Dated: 10/14/2021

5 HAYWOOD S, GILLIAM, JR. nited States District Judge 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28