(PC) Broadway vs. Felkner, et al, No. 2:2006cv01482 - Document 124 (E.D. Cal. 2010)

Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 09/27/10 recommending that plaintiff's requests for enforcement of the settlement agreement 120 , 121 and 123 be denied. MOTIONS 120 , 121 and 123 referred to Judge Morrison C. England Jr. Objections due within 21 days. (Plummer, M)
Download PDF
(PC) Broadway vs. Felkner, et al Doc. 124 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 JEFFERY BROADWAY, Plaintiff, 11 12 vs. 13 No. CIV S-06-1482 MCE KJM P T. FELKER, et al., Defendants. 14 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS / 15 On June 3, 2009, the parties filed a stipulation for voluntary dismissal with 16 17 prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) and on June 19, 2009, the court 18 dismissed the action with prejudice in accordance with the stipulation. Plaintiff has now filed three requests for enforcement of the settlement agreement 19 20 that prompted the stipulated dismissal. Docket Nos. 120, 121, 123. He alleges that the 21 defendants have breached the agreement by not transmitting the entire sum contemplated by the 22 agreement and that his requests that defendants’ counsel rectify the situation have gone 23 unanswered. 24 The undersigned did not serve as the settlement judge in this matter. The 25 settlement judge has been advised of plaintiff’s filings and has not seen fit to take any action in 26 response. This court did not retain jurisdiction over the settlement agreement nor were any terms 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 of the agreement incorporated into the order of dismissal. Therefore, this court has no 2 jurisdiction over plaintiff’s request for enforcement. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Insurance 3 Company Of America, 511 U.S. 375, 380-81 (1994). 4 5 IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED that plaintiff’s requests for enforcement of the settlement agreement (docket nos. 120, 121, 123) be denied. 6 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District 7 Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within twenty- 8 one days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 9 objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 10 “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any reply to the objections 11 shall be served and filed within fourteen days after service of the objections. The parties are 12 advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the 13 District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 14 DATED: September 27, 2010. 15 16 17 2 18 broa1482.ord 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 2