Terry O'connor, as Successor in Interest to Capital Development Company, a California Corporation v. Gary L. Colvin

We consider whether the district court had jurisdiction to enforce a settlement agreement that resolved a federal case. We conclude that it did not and vacate. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 .

I. BACKGROUND

In 1991, a dispute arose among Colvin, O’Connor and others about the ownership of certain computer programs. O’Connor sued Colvin and other defendants in state court, and the case was removed to federal district court based on the exclusive federal jurisdiction over copyrights, 28 U.S.C. § 1338 (a).

In 1993, after court-supervised settlement negotiations, the parties entered into a settlement agreement. They filed the agreement and a stipulation for dismissal with the court, after which the court dismissed the case with prejudice.

Under the settlement agreement, O’Con-nor was to pay Colvin $46,600, and Colvin was to provide O’Connor with copies of the disputed software in accordance with the terms of an incorporated licensing agreement. O’Connor paid, but Colvin delivered the software in an unusable format, charging that O’Connor had fraudulently altered the licensing agreement and was not complying with its terms or the terms of the settlement…