Alvin James Smith v. Equifax Inc. and Does 1–100

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ALVIN JAMES SMITH, Case No.: 3:24-cv-1737-CAB-DTF 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTIONS FOR v. RECONSIDERATION AND TO FILE UNDER SEAL EQUIFAX INC., and DOES 1–100, 15 Defendants. [Doc. Nos. 17–18] 17 On December 15, 2025, Plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) and a motion to file documents under seal. [Doc. Nos. 17–18.] He seeks relief from the Court’s order on March 12, 2025, which granted the parties’ joint motion to dismiss the case with prejudice. [Doc. No. 12.] Plaintiff asserts that Defendant Equifax Inc. has breached the parties’ settlement agreement. [Doc. No. 17 at 2.]

22 “[A] federal court may retain jurisdiction over a settlement agreement where the court’s order of dismissal incorporates the terms of the settlement agreement, or the order of dismissal explicitly states that the court retains jurisdiction over the settlement.”

25 Gonzalez v. United States, No. 16CV1792-MMA (KSC), 2017 WL 1094074, at *6 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 23, 2017) (citing Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 381 (1994)). The Court’s order of dismissal did not incorporate the terms of the settlement agreement nor state that the Court would retain jurisdiction. Moreover, the parties’ joint || stipulation of dismissal made no reference to any settlement agreement. [See Doc. No. 11.]

2 “‘[F]ederal courts do not have inherent or ancillary jurisdiction to enforce a settlement ||agreement simply because the subject of that settlement was a federal lawsuit.” O’Connor ||v. Colvin, 70 F.3d 530, 532 (9th Cir. 1995). Accordingly, the Court DENIES the motion || for reconsideration and DENIES as moot the motion to file documents under seal.

6 It is SO ORDERED.

7 Dated: January 9, 2026 □ Z Hon. Cathy Ann Bencivengo ? United States District Judge