Ana Ilagan v. Epifania Nicolas DDS Inc et al

Filing 61

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO REOPEN CASE AND ENFORCE SETTLEMENT 59 by Judge Otis D. Wright, II: Plaintiffs motion to re-open the case is GRANTED.Plaintiff is ORDERED to submit a copy of the final settlement agreement, accompanied by a Motio n to Enforce Settlement no later than February 18, 2019. In the event Plaintiff cannot produce the final settlement order, signed by both parties, the Court will issue a revised scheduling order and the matter will proceed to trial. (MD-JS5 Case Reopened) (lc) Modified on 2/11/2019 (lc).

O
JS-5

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

United States District Court
Central District of California

8
9
10
11

Plaintiff,

12
13
14

EPIFANIA NICOLAS DDS, INC.; and
EPIFANIA NICOLAS,
Defendants.

16

I.

17

19
20

23
24
25
26
27
28

INTRODUCTION

Presently before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion to reopen the case to enforce the
Settlement Agreement entered by the parties (“Motion”). (ECF No. 59.) For the
reasons that follow, Plaintiff’s Motion is GRANTED.1
II.

21
22

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION TO REOPEN CASE AND
ENFORCE SETTLEMENT [59]

v.

15

18

Case No. 2:16-cv-08119-ODW (MRW)

ANA ILAGAN,

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Ana Ilagan brought an action against Defendants Epifania Nicolas
DDS, Inc. and Nicolas Epifania on November 1, 2016. (Compl., ECF No. 1.) The
parties first settled the action on November 3, 2017, as indicated by the Minute Order
issued by U.S. Magistrate Judge Michael Wilner. (ECF No. 40.) The Court issued an
order indicating that either party could move to enforce the settlement, apply to reopen
After carefully considering the papers filed in support of and in opposition to the Motion, the Court
deemed the matter appropriate for decision without oral argument. Fed. R. Civ. P. 78; C.D. Cal.
L.R. 7-15.

1

1

the action, or stipulate to extend the deadline in which to file such a motion or

2

application by December 11, 2017.

3

stipulated to extend the deadline to April 30, 2018, which the Court granted. (ECF

4

No. 44.) In granting the stipulation, the Court ordered the parties to file a status report

5

no later than June 25, 2018. (Id.) When the parties failed to timely file a joint status

6

report, the Court ordered the parties to show cause why the case should not be

7

dismissed. (ECF No. 56.) In response, Plaintiff filed a status report indicating that the

8

parties had once again settled. (ECF No. 57.) The Court again dismissed the matter,

9

providing that either party could move to reopen, enforce settlement, or extend the

10

filing or application deadline on or before August 20, 2018. (ECF No. 58.) Plaintiff’s

11

Motion followed.
III.

12

(ECF No. 42.)

The parties subsequently

DISCUSSION

13

Plaintiff maintains that Defendants’ conduct has prevented resolution of this

14

case. Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants required the agreement be sent via

15

USPS mail, which Plaintiff accommodated.

16

settlement agreement, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ counsel stated, “the defendant

17

was simply too busy to read and execute the agreement.”

18

maintains that on July 15, 2018, Defendants’ counsel indicated that the agreement was

19

signed, and a check was mailed. Yet, as of August 20, 2018, Plaintiff indicated that

20

she has not received any such check. Accordingly, good cause exists to reopen the

21

matter, and Plaintiff’s request is GRANTED. The Court turns to whether to enforce

22

the settlement.

(Mot. 3.)

After sending the final
(Id. at 2.)

Plaintiff

23

The Supreme Court made clear in Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co., that a

24

“proceeding to enforce a settlement requires its own basis for jurisdiction.” Hagestad

25

v. Tragesser, 49 F. 3d 1430, 1433 (9th Cir. 1995) (citing Kokkonen v. Guardian Life

26

Ins. Co., 511 U.S. 375 (1994)). A district court has ancillary jurisdiction to enforce an

27

agreement “[w]hen the parties’ compliance with the terms of the settlement or the

28

court’s retention of jurisdiction are included in the terms of the dismissal order.” Id.

2

1

The Court expressly retained jurisdiction to enforce this Settlement Agreement

2

in the dismissal order, so the Court may enforce the settlement. (ECF No. 58.)

3

However, jurisdiction is only one piece of the puzzle. The equally important piece—

4

the Settlement Agreement—is nowhere to be found. In sum, counsel requests the

5

Court to enforce a settlement, but does not include the Settlement Agreement in its

6

papers.

7

At this juncture, Plaintiff’s argument is sufficient to warrant reopening the case.

8

The Court is unprepared to enforce the final settlement agreement without review.

9

Moreover, the Court feels it is necessary to warn the parties that the conduct of both

10

parties to this point has nearly exhausted the Court’s patience. Repeated failures to

11

effect settlement have done little more than clog the machinery of justice, interfering

12

with the Court’s ability to address the needs of the genuinely aggrieved.
III.

13

CONCLUSION

14

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s motion to re-open the case is GRANTED.

15

Plaintiff is ORDERED to submit a copy of the final settlement agreement,

16

accompanied by a Motion to Enforce Settlement no later than February 18, 2019. In

17

the event Plaintiff cannot produce the final settlement order, signed by both parties,

18

the Court will issue a revised scheduling order and the matter will proceed to trial.

19
20

IT IS SO ORDERED.

21
22

February 11, 2019

23
24
25
26

____________________________________
OTIS D. WRIGHT, II
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

27
28

3