Johnson v. Vasquez
- Richard Seeborg
- 3:19-cv-03431
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Johnson v. Vasquez, Judge Seeborg denied Johnson’s second request for judgment, ruling the dismissed case did not give the court jurisdiction.
Scott Johnson’s request for a $7,000 judgment was denied. The defendants were not required to have judgment entered against them in this federal action, which had already been dismissed with prejudice.
What happened
In Johnson v. Vasquez, Scott Johnson and the defendants had stipulated in 2021 to dismiss the case with prejudice, meaning it was closed and could not be reopened through that dismissal. The stipulation did not state that the court would keep power to enforce the settlement agreement.
Johnson later sought a $7,000 judgment, claiming the defendants had not made all required settlement payments. After an earlier request was denied without prejudice, Johnson filed a second application. Although the application showed that it had been mailed to the defendants, it did not tell them they had a right to respond, as the earlier order required.
Judge Richard Seeborg denied the application. He ruled that the prior dismissal with prejudice did not give the court jurisdiction to resolve an alleged breach of the private settlement agreement, which was at most a state-law contract claim.
The detailed version
- Johnson v. Vasquez · No. 3:19-cv-03431
- Richard Seeborg
- Feb. 13, 2025
Background
The parties submitted a written stipulation for dismissal on August 25, 2021, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). Because the stipulation expressly stated that the dismissal was with prejudice, the action was dismissed with prejudice and the file was closed.
In October 2022, Scott Johnson filed an application for entry of a stipulated judgment. He asserted that the settlement agreement entitled him to a $7,000 judgment because the defendants had failed to make all required settlement payments. The court denied that request without prejudice and said Johnson could renew it after showing that the defendants had received notice and an opportunity to respond. Johnson then took no action in response to that order until filing the application addressed here.
Second Application
Johnson’s second application was nearly identical to the first. It showed that the application had been served on the defendants by mail, but it did not tell them that they had a right to file a response, as the earlier order required.
Court’s Ruling
The court denied Johnson’s application. It explained that the application would have to be denied for lack of jurisdiction even if Johnson had complied with the earlier order’s notice requirement. The court said the prior order had been mistaken to suggest that Johnson could obtain relief through a properly served renewed motion. Because the parties had dismissed the action with prejudice in 2021, the court concluded that a private settlement agreement contemplating entry of judgment after a payment default did not revive the action or create jurisdiction to decide what was, at most, a state-law breach-of-contract claim.
The order therefore denied the “ex parte application” and did not enter the requested $7,000 judgment.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.