(PC) Koch v. Sacramento County et al, No. 2:2015cv00739 - Document 31 (E.D. Cal. 2019)
Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 12/02/19 RECOMMENDING that plaintiff's 06/19/19 motion to enforce the terms of a settlement agreement be denied. Motion 26 referred to Judge John A. Mendez. Objections due within 14 days. (Plummer, M)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ROLAND THOMAS KOCH, 12 13 14 15 No. 2:15-cv-0739 JAM CKD P Plaintiff, v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS SACRAMENTO COUNTY, et al., Defendants. 16 17 On September 1, 2016, plaintiff and the only remaining defendant, Sacramento County 18 Sheriff Scott Jones sued in his official capacity, filed a stipulation of dismissal pursuant to Rule 19 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The court was informed that the parties 20 had reached a settlement agreement, but terms of settlement were not disclosed. 21 On June 19, 2019, plaintiff filed a motion asking that “the court review and intercede in 22 enforcing the settlement agreement reached.” As the court was never made aware of the terms of 23 settlement and was never asked to retain jurisdiction over the settlement agreement before the 24 stipulation of dismissal was entered, the court does not have the authority to enter the order 25 sought. See Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of America, 511 U.S. 375, 381-82 (1994) (court 26 does not have authority to attach conditions to a parties’ stipulation of dismissal). Enforcement of 27 the agreement is a matter of California contract law over which this court does not, by itself, have 28 jurisdiction. See id. 1 1 2 In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that plaintiff’s June 19, 2019 motion to enforce the terms of a settlement agreement be denied. 3 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 4 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days 5 after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 6 objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 7 “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any response to the 8 objections shall be served and filed within fourteen days after service of the objections. The 9 parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to 10 appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 11 Dated: December 2, 2019 _____________________________________ CAROLYN K. DELANEY UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 12 13 14 15 16 1koch0739.mte 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
