Magistrate Judge James Francis
Shanghai China sued Brooks Fitch alleging state law claims of contract breach, unjust enrichment, conversion and promissory estoppel. After Shanghai informed the court that settlement had been reached, it dismissed the case, with prejudice, on Feb. 23, 2012. Brooks Fitch opposed Shanghai’s bid to enforce the settlement. Noting the parties’ different versions of events, the court denied Shanghai’s motion, finding that it lacked ancillary jurisdiction. The Feb. 23 dismissal order neither explicitly retained jurisdiction over the settlement agreement nor incorporated that agreement’s terms. Having not seen the stipulation of settlement until after the case was dismissed, the court could not have incorporated its terms into the dismissal order. Citing Dover Ltd. v. A.B. Watley Inc., the court observed that even if there was independent basis for jurisdictionsuch as diversityShanghai could not simply file a motion for enforcement in this closed case, but would be required to bring a new action. Diversity jurisdiction was unavailable given that the value of the alleged settlement does not meet 28 USC §1332(b)’s amount in controversy requirement.
