Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am.
511 U.S. 375 (1994)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A federal district court does not have inherent or ancillary jurisdiction to enforce a settlement agreement that terminated litigation unless it either incorporates the terms of the settlement into its dismissal order or expressly retains jurisdiction to enforce the settlement.
Facts:
- Guardian Life Insurance Company terminated a general agency agreement it had with petitioner Kokkonen.
- The termination led to a legal dispute between the parties.
- During litigation that reached federal court, the parties reached an oral settlement agreement in chambers to resolve all claims.
- As part of the settlement, the parties agreed to execute a stipulation and order dismissing the lawsuit with prejudice.
- After the case was dismissed, a new dispute arose over Kokkonen's obligation under the settlement agreement to return certain files to Guardian Life.
Procedural Posture:
- Kokkonen filed suit against Guardian Life in California Superior Court.
- Guardian Life removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California on the basis of diversity jurisdiction.
- Following a settlement, the parties filed a Stipulation and Order of Dismissal with Prejudice, which the District Judge signed.
- Guardian Life subsequently filed a motion in the same District Court to enforce the settlement agreement.
- The District Court granted the enforcement motion, asserting it had 'inherent power' to do so.
- Kokkonen, the appellant, appealed the enforcement order to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, arguing the district court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction.
- The Ninth Circuit affirmed the District Court's order, holding that the court had jurisdiction under its 'inherent supervisory power.'
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the Ninth Circuit's decision.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a federal district court, after dismissing a case with prejudice pursuant to a settlement agreement, have inherent ancillary jurisdiction to enforce that agreement when the dismissal order neither incorporates the agreement's terms nor expressly retains jurisdiction?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Scalia
No. A federal district court lacks jurisdiction to enforce a settlement agreement following a stipulated dismissal unless the court's order of dismissal either incorporates the settlement's terms or expressly retains jurisdiction. Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and enforcing a settlement agreement is a separate breach of contract claim requiring its own independent basis for federal jurisdiction. Ancillary jurisdiction does not extend to such a claim because the facts of the original dispute and the facts of the settlement breach are not interdependent. Furthermore, a court's power to vindicate its authority is not implicated, because a breach of a private settlement agreement does not flout the court's dismissal order. For a court to have jurisdiction, the parties must have made their compliance with the settlement agreement a part of the court's order, which they failed to do here.
Analysis:
This decision establishes a clear, bright-line rule that restricts federal courts' ancillary jurisdiction over settlement agreements. It places the burden squarely on the litigants to secure federal enforcement power by having the court either incorporate the settlement's terms into the dismissal order or explicitly retain jurisdiction. The ruling prevents federal courts from being drawn back into disputes they have already dismissed, thereby promoting judicial finality and reinforcing the principle of limited federal jurisdiction. As a practical matter, it forces lawyers to be more deliberate at the settlement stage to ensure their clients have an efficient federal forum for enforcement if needed, rather than having to file a new state court action for breach of contract.
