Gould v. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation
- Haywood Gilliam
- 4:19-cv-00015
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Gould v. Marino, Judge Gilliam denied Gould’s settlement-enforcement request as premature and for lack of jurisdiction.
Steven Eric Gould’s request to enforce the settlement was denied; the court also ruled that it lacked jurisdiction to enforce the agreement after closing the case.
What happened
In Steven Eric Gould v. Laurie Marino, et al., the parties had agreed to settle the case and jointly asked the court to dismiss it with prejudice. The court closed the case without retaining authority to enforce the settlement.
Gould asked the court to enforce the agreement, stating that he had not received payment by September 22, 2021. The court found the request premature because the agreement’s 180-day payment deadline had not yet passed.
The court also ruled that it lacked authority to enforce the settlement because it had not retained jurisdiction or included the agreement in its dismissal order. Judge Gilliam denied Gould’s request as premature and for lack of jurisdiction.
The detailed version
- Gould v. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation · No. 4:19-cv-00015
- Haywood Gilliam
- Oct. 14, 2021
Background
Steven Eric Gould, an inmate at the Clark County Detention Center, filed this civil-rights action without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On April 27, 2021, the parties filed a joint stipulation stating that they had resolved the case in its entirety and agreeing to dismissal with prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). The court then closed the case. The parties did not ask the court to retain jurisdiction—meaning continuing authority—to enforce their settlement agreement.
Request to Enforce the Settlement
Gould moved to enforce the settlement, stating that he had not received payment as of September 22, 2021. The court found the request premature because the settlement agreement was executed on June 8, 2021, and its 180-day deadline had not yet passed.
Jurisdiction
The court also held that it lacked jurisdiction to enforce the settlement agreement. Under the rule the court applied, a court retains authority over a settlement after dismissing a case only if the dismissal order specifically retains that authority or incorporates the settlement agreement. Here, the joint stipulation did not ask the court to retain jurisdiction, and the court’s dismissal did not incorporate the agreement.
Disposition
The court denied Gould’s request to enforce the settlement agreement as premature and for lack of jurisdiction. The order terminated Docket No. 49. The court also encouraged Gould to contact defense counsel directly before filing another motion to try to resolve the issue.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.