Ortolf

Ortolf v. Silver Bar Mines, Inc.

Good Law
111 F.3d 85·97 Daily Journal DAR 4803·1997 WL 174848·1997 U.S. App. LEXIS 6766·97 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 2704
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitApril 14, 1997Nos. 95-36152, 95-36160California1,018 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Kleinfeld, J.

The only issue in this case is whether the supplemental jurisdiction of the district court extended to separate lawsuits to enforce settlement agreements.

Facts

Two diversity cases involving overlapping groups of plaintiffs and defendants had been filed and settled in the United States District Court. In both the “exceeds ... $50,000” jurisdictional amount requirement had been satisfied. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332 . The settlements provided for payment of $45,000 in one case, $15,000 in the other, by plaintiffs interpretation. The case at bar is an appeal from subsequent actions filed in the United States District Court, to enforce unpaid amounts on both agreements. The amount now claimed does not exceed $50,000.

The magistrate judge found that he had “ancillary jurisdiction” to adjudicate claims arising out of a breach of the settlement agreements, and held a two-day trial of the consolidated actions. The magistrate judge found that the defendants had in fact breached the settlement agreements, carefully analyzed the past payments and amounts due, and granted judgments for the plaintiffs. He rejected the defendants’ claim that the United States District Court lacked jurisdiction to…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.