San Francisco Residence Club, Inc et al v. Amado et al

Filing 237

ORDER by Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley granting 227 Motion to Enforce Settlement (ahm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/11/2012)

1
2
3
4
5
6
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9
10
Northern District of California

United States District Court

11

SAN FRANCISCO RESIDENCE CLUB,
et al.,

12
13

Plaintiffs,

Case No.: C09-2054 RS (JSC)
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO
ENFORCE SETTLEMENT (DKT. NO.
227)

v.

14
15
16

HENRY A. AMADO, SR., et al.,
Defendants.

17
18

Now pending before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Motion to Enforce Settlement. (Dkt. No.

19

227.) After carefully considering the parties’ submissions, including review of the written

20

settlement agreement, the Court concludes that oral argument is unnecessary, see Civil L.R. 7-

21

1(b), and GRANTS Plaintiffs’ motion. The Court shall enter judgment in favor of Plaintiff

22

Donahue O’Shea LLC and against Defendants Henry A. Amado, Sr., Edward S. Broda,

23

Gregory Fish and G.D. Fish & Associates, Inc., in the total amount of $41,666.00. The Court

24

shall also enter judgment in favor of Plaintiff Donahue O’Shea LLC and against Defendants

25

Henry A. Amado, Sr. and Edward S. Broda for the additional amount of $1,250.00 for

26

attorney’s fees incurred by Plaintiffs because of the breach of the Settlement Agreement.

27

The parties entered into a written settlement agreement in 2011 (“the Settlement

28

Agreement”). (Dkt. No. 235.) Among other things, the Agreement provided that Defendants

1

Henry Amado, Edward Broda, Gregory Fish and G.D. Fish & Associates, Inc., jointly and

2

severally, would pay $25,000 to Plaintiff Donahue O’Shea, LLC on or before December 15,

3

2011. (Id. Ex. B ¶ 1.) The Settlement Agreement further provided that should the payment

4

not be made, “Plaintiffs may cause to be entered the stipulated judgment executed by Amado,

5

Broda and Fish in the form attached hereto as Exhibit B hereto and incorporated herein by this

6

reference in the amount of $50,000.” (Id.) The parties also agreed that the undersigned judge

7

would maintain jurisdiction to enforce the terms of the Settlement Agreement “and that such

8

jurisdiction shall continue until the payment of all sums due under this Agreement.” (Id., Ex.

9

A ¶ 12.) Further, “[i]n the case of breach, the prevailing party shall be entitled to the award of

10

attorney fees relating to the breach.” (Id.)

Northern District of California

United States District Court

11

Unfortunately, at the time of the execution of the Settlement Agreement, Defendants

12

did not sign the stipulated judgment as required. Defendants also did not make the $25,000

13

December 2011 payment; instead, Defendant Amado alone paid Plaintiffs $8,334.00 (one

14

third of $25,000). Since that time Defendants have not paid any additional funds. Thus,

15

Defendants are in default of their obligation under the Settlement Agreement to pay $25,000

16

by December 15, 2011. Under the plain terms of the Agreement, Plaintiffs are therefore

17

entitled to judgment in the amount of $50,000, plus their attorney’s fees incurred because of

18

Defendants’ breach, less the $8,334.00 already paid.

19

Defendant Broda did not respond to Plaintiffs’ motion to enforce. Defendants Amado

20

and Fish assert that they are not in breach of the Agreement because in December 2011 Mr.

21

Amado offered to pay Plaintiffs the full $25,000 provided they agreed to assign the Stipulated

22

Judgment to him, but they refused. The Court is unpersuaded. Nothing in the Settlement

23

Agreement required Plaintiffs to assign anything to Defendants. Instead, the Agreement

24

unequivocally required Defendants, jointly and severally, to pay Plaintiffs $25,000 by

25

December 15, 2011; if they did not satisfy this obligation, Plaintiffs were entitled to a

26

judgment in the amount of $50,000.00.

27
28

Mr. Amado’s contention that Defendants have not complied with other, independent
obligations under the Agreement is also unpersuasive. If Defendants have good cause for

2

1

seeking to enforce the Settlement Agreement they may do so, but no such motion is currently

2

pending. On the motion and record before the Court, the Court finds that Defendants Amado,

3

Fish and Broda breached their joint and several obligation to pay Plaintiffs $25,000 and

4

therefore Plaintiffs are entitled to a judgment in the amount of $50,000.00
CONCLUSION

5

Under the plain terms of the Settlement Agreement Plaintiff Donahue O’Shea LLC is

6

pay them $25,000 by December 15, 2011. Defendants only paid $8,334.00. Accordingly,

9

Plaintiff is entitled to judgment in the amount of $41,666.00 ($50,000 less the amount paid),

10

plus $1,250.00 in attorney’s fees incurred as a result of the breach by Defendants Amado and

11
Northern District of California

entitled to a judgment in the amount of $50,000 if Defendants Amado, Fish and Broda did not

8

United States District Court

7

Broda.

12

This Order disposes of Docket No. 228. The Court will order judgment accordingly.

13
14

IT IS SO ORDERED.

15
16

Dated: June 11, 2012

_________________________________
JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

3