Fairfax Countywide Citizens Ass'n v. Fairfax County, Va.

• Decision Date: 06 March 1978
• Docket Number: Nos. 77-1190,77-1248,s. 77-1190
• Citation: 571 F.2d 1299
• Parties: FAIRFAX COUNTYWIDE CITIZENS ASSOCIATION, Gum Springs Civic Association, Springdale Civic Association, Cooktown Citizens Association, William L. and Jeanne G. Paige, Ulysses O. and Ada M. Scott, Roy and Evelyn A. Brent, Earnest W. and Margaret E. Gibson, Appellees, v. COUNTY OF FAIRFAX, VIRGINIA, Joseph Alexander, Mrs. Martha V. Pennino, John Herrity, Alan H. Magazine, Mrs. Audrey Moore, James M. Scott, Marie B. Travesky, John P. Schacochis, Warren I. Cikins, Individually and members, County of Fairfax Board of Supervisors, Appellants. FAIRFAX COUNTYWIDE CITIZENS ASSOCIATION, Gum Springs Civic Association, Springdale Civic Association, William L. and Jeanne G. Paige, Ulysses O. and Ada M. Scott, Roy and Evelyn A. Brent, Appellants, v. COUNTY OF FAIRFAX, VIRGINIA, Joseph Alexander, Mrs. Martha V. Pennino, John Herrity, Alan H. Magazine, Mrs. Audrey Moore, James M. Scott, Marie B. Travesky, John P. Schacochis, Warren I. Cikins, Individually and members, County of Fairfax Board of Supervisors, and Douglas B. Fugate, Individually, and as Virginia State Highway Commissioner, Appellees.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit

Page 1299

571 F.2d 1299

FAIRFAX COUNTYWIDE CITIZENS ASSOCIATION, Gum Springs Civic

Association, Springdale Civic Association, Cooktown Citizens

Association, William L. and Jeanne G. Paige, Ulysses O. and Ada M. Scott, Roy and Evelyn A. Brent, Earnest W. and Margaret E. Gibson, Appellees, v. COUNTY OF FAIRFAX, VIRGINIA, Joseph Alexander, Mrs. Martha

V. Pennino, John Herrity, Alan H. Magazine, Mrs. Audrey

Moore, James M. Scott, Marie B. Travesky, John P.

Schacochis, Warren I. Cikins, Individually and members,

County of Fairfax Board of Supervisors, Appellants.

FAIRFAX COUNTYWIDE CITIZENS ASSOCIATION, Gum Springs Civic

Association, Springdale Civic Association, William

L. and Jeanne G. Paige, Ulysses O. and

Ada M. Scott, Roy and Evelyn

A. Brent, Appellants, v. COUNTY OF FAIRFAX, VIRGINIA, Joseph Alexander, Mrs. Martha

V. Pennino, John Herrity, Alan H. Magazine, Mrs. Audrey

Moore, James M. Scott, Marie B. Travesky, John P.

Schacochis, Warren I. Cikins, Individually and members,

County of Fairfax Board of Supervisors, and Douglas B.

Fugate, Individually, and as Virginia State Highway

Commissioner, Appellees.

Nos. 77-1190, 77-1248.

United States Court of Appeals Fourth Circuit.

Argued Jan. 9, 1978.

Decided March 6, 1978.

Robert Lyndon Howell, Asst. County Atty., Alexandria, Va. (Frederic Lee Ruck, County Atty., Fairfax, Va., on brief), for appellants in 77-1190.

John J. Beall, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen. (Anthony F. Troy, Atty. Gen. of Va., Walter A. McFarlane, Deputy Atty. Gen., Richmond, Va., on brief), for appellees in 77-1248.

Allison W. Brown, Jr., Washington, D. C. (Robert M. Alexander, Arlington, Va., Jack Greenberg and James M. Nabrit, III, New York City, on brief), for appellees and cross-appellants.

Before WINTER, RUSSELL and WIDENER, Circuit Judges.

WINTER, Circuit Judge:

The County of Fairfax, Virginia (County) appeals from an order of the district court directing County to perform its remaining obligations under a 1972 settlement agreement between it and Fairfax Countywide Citizens Association (Association). Because we conclude that the district court lacked jurisdiction to issue the order, we reverse. ¹

I.

In August 1971, several citizens associations located in Fairfax County, Virginia, and six individuals, filed suit in the district court alleging racial discrimination in the delivery of public services in violation of 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1983 and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Specifically, plaintiffs claimed that a disproportionate number of unpaved and substandard roads in Fairfax County were located in predominantly black neighborhoods. Plaintiffs prayed a mandatory injunction compelling County to pave and upgrade the roads in question, including the construction of adequate drainage facilities curbs, gutters and sidewalks. ² In addition to naming County and certain of its officials as defendants to the action, plaintiffs also joined Douglas B. Fugate, the Virginia State Highway Commissioner and chief administrator of the Virginia Highway System. Following a denial of defendants' motions to dismiss, the case was set for trial on June 1, 1972.

On May 31, 1972, following extensive pretrial discovery, plaintiffs entered into two separate settlement agreements. The first, between plaintiffs and defendant Fugate, required the Commonwealth to upgrade six streets located in black neighborhoods in Fairfax County. These streets were already part of the Virginia secondary highway system ³ and, therefore, within the jurisdiction of the State Highway Department. ⁴ The second settlement agreement, between plaintiffs and County, required County to upgrade seventy-six additional roads in black neighborhoods within a three-year period. None of these roads was, at the time of the agreement, included in the Virginia secondary highway system. County, however, promised to "make every effort to have the . . . streets, when improved, taken into the State Highway System." If these efforts proved unsuccessful, County nonetheless recognized a "continuing responsibility to maintain these streets in a fair and equitable manner."

After securing these agreements, plaintiffs moved for dismissal of their claims against State and County. The motion was granted and three dismissal orders, each naming different defendants, were entered on June 1, 1972. The orders each recited that on plaintiffs' motion, and with defendants' consent, the case was dismissed. While Associations' later motion alleged that the settlement agreements were filed in open court (the docket entries do not so recite and the clerk's file does not contain them), the orders themselves did not mention that the parties had entered into settlement agreements; and they neither approved nor incorporated either settlement agreement.

Thereafter, the Commonwealth substantially performed its obligations under the settlement agreement. County likewise commenced performance of its obligations and, in the ensuing three years, upgraded twenty-five roads in black neighborhoods. In 1975, after certain black residents not party to the settlement agreement obtained a permanent injunction preventing County from upgrading one of the subject roads, County reviewed its obligations and determined that the settlement agreement was, at least in part, void as contrary to state law. Following this determination, County's Board of Supervisors passed a resolution, dated April 28, 1975, repudiating the settlement agreement. ⁵

On August 5, 1975, plaintiffs moved the district court to vacate the dismissal order of June 1, 1972. Plaintiffs did not pray reinstatement of their law suit and an opportunity to try it. Rather, they prayed enforcement of the settlement agreements and, if state law prohibited County's performance, a declaration of the invalidity of the various statutes, regulations and administrative rulings pertaining to the Virginia State Highway System which purportedly prohibited such performance. On January 30, 1976, under authority of Rule 60(b)(6), F.R.Civ.P., the district court vacated its previous order of dismissal; and, on November 26, 1976, it entered an order directing County to upgrade the forty-three roads still in controversy. ⁶

II.

Neither in the proceedings in the district court nor in its initial brief filed with this court, did County challenge the jurisdiction of the district court to resolve what had become essentially a contract dispute between the parties. Because it appeared to us that, at the time enforcement was sought by Association, it was possible that federal subject-matter jurisdiction was lacking, we requested that the jurisdictional issue be briefed and argued. Upon consideration of the various arguments advanced and authorities cited, we conclude that this issue is indeed dispositive and that the district court lacked jurisdiction to enter an enforcement order.

III.

As the sole authority supporting the district court's exercise of federal jurisdiction to enforce the settlement agreement, Association cites Aro Corp. v. Allied Witan Co., 531 F.2d 1368 (6 Cir.), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 862, 97 S.Ct. 165, 50 L.Ed.2d 140 (1976), a case arising on facts virtually indistinguishable from those in the case at bar.

In the Aro case, Aro Corporation had originally filed an action for patent infringement against Allied Witan Company (Allied) under 28 U.S.C. § 1338. Prior to trial, Aro and Allied settled their dispute by means of a licensing agreement, and by stipulation of the parties, the complaint was dismissed. Six weeks later, Allied breached the agreement by refusing to tender the initial royalty payment. Aro thereupon filed a motion under Rule 60(b)(6), F.R.Civ.P., praying both that the district court vacate its prior dismissal order and that Allied be compelled to perform its obligations under the licensing agreement. Defendant challenged the district court's jurisdiction to grant the relief sought; but the district court ruled that it had the requisite subject-matter jurisdiction, 65 F.R.D. 513 (N.D. Ohio 1975), and the Sixth Circuit affirmed, holding first that defendant's repudiation of the settlement agreement constituted "full justification" under Rule 60(b)(6) for reopening the proceedings; and second, that the district court was empowered to enforce the settlement agreement notwithstanding the lack of diversity of citizenship between the parties. 531 F.2d at 1371.

We are in agreement with the Sixth Circuit that, upon repudiation of a settlement agreement which had terminated litigation pending before it, a district court has the authority under Rule 60(b)(6) ⁷ to vacate its prior dismissal order and restore the case to its docket. See also Chief Freight Lines Co. v. Local Union No. 886, 514 F.2d 572 (10 Cir. 1975); Kelly v. Greer, 334 F.2d 434 (3 Cir. 1964). We respectfully differ, however, with the Aro court in its conclusion that, once the proceedings are reopened, the district court is necessarily empowered to enforce the settlement agreement against the breaching party. We are of the opinion that the district court is not so empowered unless the agreement had been approved and incorporated into an order of the court, or, at the time the court is requested to enforce the agreement, there exists some independent ground upon which to base federal jurisdiction. ⁸

A district court is a court of limited jurisdiction "(a)nd the fair presumption is (not as with regard to a court of general jurisdiction, that a cause is within its jurisdiction unless the contrary appears, but rather) that a cause is without its jurisdiction till the contrary appears," Turner v. President, Directors and Company of the Bank of North America, 4 Dall. 7, 10, 1 L.Ed. 718, 719 (1799). The burden of establishing jurisdiction is on the party claiming it. McNutt v. General Motors Accept. Corp., 298 U.S. 178, 182-83, 56 S.Ct. 780, 80 L.Ed. 1135 (1936). After canvassing the possible sources of jurisdiction in the instant case, we do...