Whether the state court's jurisdiction is exclusive and ancillary under Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of America, thereby precluding the exercise of concurrent jurisdiction by the federal district court to enforce and modify the state court settlement and judgment

QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW A Colorado state court entered judgment approving a class action settlement and expressly retained continuing jurisdiction to enforce the judgment as essential to the performance of its judicial functions. The state court intended its jurisdiction to be exclusive and maintained its exclusive jurisdiction without dismissing the case. Nevertheless, a magistrate judge of the United States District Court for the District of Colorado subsequently entertained a separate lawsuit alleging a breach of the state court-approved settlement and judgment, and approved a new settlement enforcing and modifying the state court settlement and judgment. The Tenth Circuit affirmed. The following questions are presented: 1. Is the state court’s jurisdiction exclusive and ancillary under this Court’s decision in Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of America, 511 U.S. 375 (1994), thereby precluding the exercise of concurrent jurisdiction by the federal district court to enforce and modify the state court settlement and judgment? 2. Does comity require the federal court to abstain from seizing concurrent jurisdiction and ousting the state court’s jurisdiction to enforce the settlement and judgment which the state court had approved and over which it retained jurisdiction?