Hagerman v. Cornutt

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 MARK HAGERMAN, Case No.: 2:23-cv-00491-APG-DJA 4 Plaintiff Order Denying Motion to Enforce Settlement 5 v. [ECF No. 59] 6 CORNUTT, et al., 7 Defendants 8 The parties settled this case in July 2024 and filed a stipulation to dismiss the case, which 9 I granted. ECF Nos. 57, 58. Plaintiff Mark Hagerman contends the defendants have not fulfilled 10 the terms of the settlement, so he moves for an order either compelling the defendants to comply 11 or reopening this case. ECF No. 59. The defendants have produced documents showing that 12 Hagerman acknowledged receipt of all items satisfying the terms of the settlement. ECF Nos. 6113 2, 61-3. Hagerman has not disputed that. Thus, his motion is moot. 14 In addition, this court lacks jurisdiction over Hagerman’s request. 15 [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. When the 16 initial action is dismissed, federal jurisdiction terminates. . . . A motion to enforce the settlement agreement, then, is a separate contract dispute requiring its own independent 17 basis for jurisdiction. 18 O’Connor v. Colvin, 70 F.3d 530, 532 (9th Cir. 1995) (citations omitted). In my order 19 dismissing the case, I did not retain jurisdiction to enforce the settlement agreement. And there 20 is no federal question or diversity jurisdiction over Hagerman’s claim that the defendants 21 breached the settlement agreement. Therefore I lack jurisdiction to grant Hagerman the relief he 22 seeks. 23 / / / / 1 I THEREFORE ORDER that the motion to enforce settlement (ECF No. 59) is denied. 2 DATED this 21st day of November, 2024. — 3 — Ga 4 ANDREW P.GORDON sits 5 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE — 6 — — 7 — — 8 — — 9 — — 10 — 1] — 12 — — 13 — — 14 — — 15 — — 16 — — 17 — — 18 — — 19 — — 20 — — 21 — — 22 — — 23 —