the axiom that “[fjederal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction.” Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co., 511 U.S. 375, 377, 114 S.Ct. 1673, 128 L.Ed.2d 391 (1994). Federal courts draw their jurisdictional power from explicit grants by Congress, and from Art. III of the U.S. Constitution. See U.S. Const, art. III; Ins. Corp. of Ireland, Ltd. v. Compagnie des Bauxites de Guinee, 456 U.S. 694, 701-02, 102 S.Ct. 2099, 72 L.Ed.2d 492 (1982). Regardless of whether both parties wish for the federal court to retain indefinite jurisdiction to enforce their settlement agreement, “parties may not confer subject matter jurisdiction by consent.” Samuel-Bassett v. KIA Motors Am., Inc., 357 F.3d 392, 396 (3d Cir.2004) (citations omitted); see also Collins v. Thompson, 8 F.3d 657, 659 (9th Cir.1993) (<HOLDING>), cert. denied, 511 U.S. 1127, 114 S.Ct. 2133,
holding that lack of jurisdiction cannot be cured by consent holding that parties may consent to jurisdiction on noncore matters holding that a federal court may refuse to exercise continuing jurisdiction even though the parties have agreed to it parties cannot confer jurisdiction by stipulation or consent holding the federal tort claims act did not permit exercise of pendant jurisdiction over additional parties as to which no basis for federal jurisdiction existed holding that parties to a suit cannot waive a judges disqualification but not equating inability to consent to a loss of jurisdiction