United States District Court, D. Hawaii
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL
PROCEDURE 60(B) MOTION TO SET ASIDE ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE
JUDGE'S FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
C. Kay Sr., United States District Judge
reasons set forth below, the Court DENIES Defendant Rosario
Mae Ramos' Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) Motion
to Set Aside Order Adopting Magistrate Judge's Findings
March 8, 2011, Plaintiff John Sidney Ruppersberger
(“Plaintiff” or “Ruppersberger”)
filed a Complaint in this Court to collect on two promissory
notes executed by Defendant Rosario Mae Ramos
(“Defendant” or “Ramos”) in favor of
Plaintiff in the principal amount of $80, 000. Compl.
¶¶ 9, 14, ECF No. 1.
November 4, 2011, the Magistrate Judge held a settlement
conference on the record and a settlement was reached. ECF
No. 28. Defendant's counsel prepared a Stipulation for
Dismissal. ECF No. 34. The Stipulation for Dismissal had an
empty signature line for the Court to sign with “so
ordered” written above it. ECF No. 34. After the
parties filed the stipulation, the Court approved it on
January 3, 2012. Stipulation for Dismissal Order, ECF No. 35.
“Approved as to Form” was written above the
Court's signature. ECF No. 35. The docket entry notes
that the stipulation was signed by the Court. ECF No. 35. The
stipulation provided, in pertinent part, as follows:
1. The parties hereby agree that the above-captioned action
is dismissed and discontinued with prejudice, as to the named
defendant, pursuant to Rule 41(a) of the Federal Rules of
2. Any and all claims of damages by plaintiff which are the
subject of this action or otherwise arise out of any
incidents alleged in the Complaint are hereby settled, as
against the named defendant, by the terms of the $118, 000
mortgage, promissory note and limited power of attorney
(collectively hereinafter the “Settlement
Documents”) in full satisfaction of all claims for
damages, costs, disbursement and legal fees.
. . . .
4. In consideration for the execution of the Settlement
Documents stated in Paragraph #2, above, plaintiff hereby
releases the named defendant and her heirs, executors,
administrators and assigns, from any and all claims,
liabilities and causes of action related to or arising out of
any and all of the events set forth in the Complaint in the
. . . .
6. This Stipulation of Dismissal and any Order entered
thereon shall have no precedential value or effect whatsoever
and shall not be admissible in any other action or proceeding
as evidence or for any other purpose except in an action or
proceeding to enforce this Stipulation of Dismissal.
ECF No. 35, at 1-2.
February 13, 2015, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Enforce
Settlement Agreement. ECF No. 36. At an initial hearing on
the Motion, the Magistrate Judge raised a question as to
whether the Court had jurisdiction to enforce the settlement.
See Pl.'s First Supp. Mem. in Supp. of Pl.'s
Mot. to Enforce Settlement Agreement, ECF No. 45, at 2.
Plaintiff's Counsel filed a Supplemental Memorandum
addressing this issue. Id. at 3-7.
7, 2015, after holding a hearing, Magistrate Judge Barry M.
Kurren issued Findings and Recommendations to Grant
Plaintiff's Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement
(“F&R”). ECF No. 51. The F&R found that
the Court had “jurisdiction to enforce the settlement
agreement, as the Stipulation for Dismissal incorporated the
material terms of the settlement, thus granting this Court
ancillary jurisdiction to enforce the settlement.”
Id. Conclusions of Law (“COL”) ¶ 2
(citing Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co., 511 U.S.
375, 381 (1994)). Additionally, the F&R noted the Court
had jurisdiction because “there is an ...