1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 RAFAEL ARROYO, Case No. 21-cv-00953-TSH

8 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING EX PARTE 9 v. APPLICATION FOR ENTRY OF STIPULATED JUDGMENT 10 WRC HUNTINGTON, LLC, Re: Dkt. No. 17 11 Defendant.

12 13 Plaintiff Rafael Arroyo applies for an order by this Court “entering the Judgment as 14 stipulated by the parties on 6/4/2021.” ECF No. 17. However, on February 15, 2022, Plaintiff 15 voluntarily dismissed this with prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16 41(a)(1)(A)(i). ECF No. 16. At that time, the Court did not retain jurisdiction over this matter, 17 and no other order had been entered regarding the parties’ settlement agreement. 18 “Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. They possess only that power authorized 19 by Constitution and statute. . . . It is to be presumed that a cause lies outside this limited 20 jurisdiction, and the burden of establishing the contrary rests upon the party asserting jurisdiction.” 21 Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am.,

(1994) (citations omitted). 22 Enforcement of a settlement agreement “is more than just a continuation or renewal of the 23 dismissed suit, and hence requires its own basis for jurisdiction.”

Thus, where a settlement 24 agreement results in dismissal of an action and the Court has not retained jurisdiction as part of the 25 dismissal, any subsequent issues that arise are considered “a claim for breach of a contract, part of 26 the consideration for which was dismissal of an earlier federal suit.”

(“The facts to be 27 determined with regard to such alleged breaches of contract are quite separate from the facts to be 1 essential to the conduct of federal-court business.”). 2 Here, Plaintiff dismissed this case voluntarily without a court order, and the Court did not 3 retain jurisdiction over the parties’ settlement agreement. Accordingly, the Court is without 4 || jurisdiction to enforce the settlement agreement and any claims related to it. Any such claims 5 || must be brought in state court as a breach of contract claim. Kokkonen,

(Absent a 6 || request for the court to retain jurisdiction over the settlement contract, “enforcement of the 7 settlement agreement is for state courts.”); see generally Hagestad v. Tragesser,

(9th 8 Cir. 1995) (holding that the district court lacked jurisdiction to enforce settlement in a case in 9 which the judge issued a conditional dismissal but did not expressly retain jurisdiction and did not 10 || incorporate the terms of the settlement into the dismissal, even though the judge orally indicated 11 that he intended to oversee the settlement). 12 Accordingly, Plaintiff's request for entry of judgment is DENIED. Plaintiff is advised that 13 the Court shall not accept any further filings in this matter. IT IS SO ORDERED.

a 16 Dated: October 19, 2022

THOMAS S. HIXSON Z 18 United States Magistrate Judge 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28