Cranshire Capital, L.P. v. CBTV-Star, LW, Inc.

MEMORANDUM *

Keystone Energy Services, Inc. (“Keystone”), appeals from the district court’s entry of judgment against it pursuant to the terms of a settlement agreement allegedly entered into by Keystone and Cranshire Capital, L.P. (“Cranshire”). Keystone contends that (1) the district court lacked jurisdiction to enter the judgment; (2) the settlement agreement was invalid under California law; and (3) the district court imposed terms beyond those called for in the settlement. The facts and prior proceedings are known to the parties, and are restated herein only as necessary.

I

In Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Insurance Company of America, the Supreme Court held that “[ejnforcement of ... [a] settlement agreement, ... whether through award of damages or decree of specific performance, is more than just a continuation or renewal of the dismissed suit, and hence requires its own basis for jurisdiction.” 511 U.S. 375, 378 , 114 S.Ct. 1673 , 128 L.Ed.2d 391 (1994). The mere existence of an “agreement that has as part of its consideration the dismissal of a case before a federal court,” id. at 380 , 114 S.Ct. 1673 , without more, is not a sufficient basis for a federal court’s…

I dissent. Having expressly retained jurisdiction for 120 days only, the district court lost jurisdiction at the end of the 120-day period. It’s as simple as that. The 120 days having expired, the district court had no jurisdiction to enter the judgment. For that reason, I do not reach the merits, although I note that the judgment that was entered (in excess of the court’s jurisdiction) contained material errors in that it does not provide, as it should have, for any reduction or return of funds as a result of a sale of the stock by Cranshire, notwithstanding my colleagues’ statement to the contrary.