Litigants have different reasons for wanting to try their cases in federal court. But a wise band of non-lawyers (although litigants) once sang, “You can’t always get what you want.” (Written by Mick Jagger and Keith Richards, in The Rolling Stones’ 1969 album, Let It Bleed.) A party does not have a right to litigate in federal court simply because it files its case there, even if the other parties agree, because federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. Federal subject matter jurisdiction cannot be conferred by consent nor its requirement waived. A U.S. district court must have either federal question jurisdiction or diversity jurisdiction. This much is taught in basic civil procedure classes in law school and generally understood by practitioners.

But a less understood practice pointer is trying to ensure that a party who gets through the door to the district courthouse can come knocking again if the case settles and a party later needs the district court’s intervention to enforce the settlement’s terms. The party that wanted to litigate in federal court in the first place may have an even greater desire to be able to resort to the same court and the same district and magistrate judges to enforce a settlement if necessary. For example, a party anticipating problems from the other side may want to benefit from the knowledge that the judges have concerning the case and the parties. It may even be that the settlement itself was brokered with the assistance of the court, which then has all the more important familiarity with the relevant issues. For these or other reasons, the parties may want the district court to retain jurisdiction to enforce the settlement.