Reeves & Associates, PLC v. Muller

Filing 41

ORDER REQUIRING DEFENDANT TO SHOW CAUSE RE CONTEMPT OF COURT by Hon. William Alsup granting in part 34 Ex Parte Application.(whalc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/24/2012) (Additional attachment(s) added on 12/24/2012: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service) (dt, COURT STAFF).

1
2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

3
4

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
5
6
7

REEVES & ASSOCIATES, PLC,

8
9

Plaintiff,
ORDER REQUIRING DEFENDANT
TO SHOW CAUSE RE
CONTEMPT OF COURT

v.

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

No. C 11-04762 WHA

MATTHEW D. MULLER, AND DOES 125, Inclusive,

12

Defendants.
/

13
14

INTRODUCTION

15

In this employee-misappropriation action, plaintiff moves to require defendant to show

16

cause for why he should not be held in contempt for violating a stipulated injunctive relief and

17

protective order. Plaintiff’s request for a show-cause hearing is GRANTED.

18

STATEMENT

19

This action was initially filed on September 2011. It arises from defendant’s alleged

20

misappropriation of confidential and proprietary data during his final days of employment at

21

Reeves. On October 2011, the parties filed a stipulation for an order for injunctive relief and

22

protective order. The terms of the stipulated order were incorporated and became an order of

23

this Court (Dkt. No. 24 at 8). Less than two weeks after the stipulation was entered, the parties

24

stipulated to a voluntary dismissal with prejudice (Dkt. No. 29).

25

The stipulated order prevents defendant from using, altering or destroying data and

26

requires defendant to deliver certain hard-drives to a computer security firm. The order provides

27

that a computer security firm was to print out a map of the drive contents to identify any and all

28

of plaintiff’s files on the drives. Plaintiff now contends, nearly a year after the action was
dismissed, that defendant is in violation of the order by refusing to cooperate in the mapping of

1

the drives. Plaintiff seeks to hold defendant in contempt for allegedly violating the stipulated

2

order. Defendant was served with this motion but has failed to file an opposition or respond in

3

any manner.

4
5

ANALYSIS
This Court has jurisdiction to enforce its prior orders. The issue of jurisdiction turns on

6

whether the parties’ stipulated injunctive relief and protective order is more akin to a private

7

settlement agreement or to a consent decree.

8
9

“[A] consent decree has attributes of both a contract and a judicial act.” Olney v. United
States, 543 F.3d 1168, 1173–74 (9th Cir. 2008). The Supreme Court has explained that a
consent decree is “an agreement that the parties desire and expect will be reflected in, and be

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

enforceable as, a judicial decree that is subject to the rules generally applicable to other

12

judgments and decrees.” Rufo v. Inmates of Suffolk Cnty. Jail, 502 U.S. 367, 378 (1992). “A

13

consent decree is a judgment, has the force of res judicata, and it may be enforced by judicial

14

sanctions,

15

including . . . citations for contempt.” S.E.C. v. Randolph, 736 F.2d 525, 528 (9th Cir. 1984).

16

In contrast, district courts only have jurisdiction to enforce the terms of a private

17

settlement agreement in limited circumstances. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of America,

18

511 U.S. 375 (1994). The Supreme Court has held that

19
20
21

federal courts do not have inherent or ancillary jurisdiction to enforce a settlement
agreement simply because the subject of that settlement was a federal lawsuit.
When the initial action is dismissed, federal jurisdiction terminates. A motion to
enforce the settlement agreement, then, is a separate contract dispute requiring its
own independent basis for jurisdiction.

22

O'Connor v. Colvin, 70 F.3d 530, 532 (9th Cir. 1995) (citing Kokkonen) (internal citations and

23

quotations omitted). In this way, “[a] consent decree offers more security to the parties than a

24

settlement agreement where the only penalty for failure to abide by the agreement is another

25

suit.” Randolph, 736 F.2d at 528.

26

Generally, federal courts lack jurisdiction to enforce settlement agreements when the

27

action is dismissed with prejudice. As stated by our court of appeals, the Supreme Court in

28

Kokkonen recognized an exception to this rule.
2

1
2
3

We think the court is authorized to embody the settlement contract in its
dismissal order (or, what has the same effect, retain jurisdiction over the
settlement contract) if the parties agree. If the dismissal order incorporates the
settlement terms, the Court reasoned, a violation of those terms would amount to
a violation of the court’s order. The court would then have ancillary jurisdiction
to vindicate its authority.

4
O'Connor, 70 F.3d at 532 (internal citations and quotations omitted).
5
The stipulated injunctive relief and protective order herein is an enforceable order of the
6
Court. The order is an agreement between the parties that they requested and expected to be
7
enforceable as a judicial decree. It specifically provides for judicial oversight (see, e.g., Dkt. No.
8
24 at 8). The stipulation was signed and entered as an order of this Court. District courts have
9
jurisdiction to enforce settlement agreements if the court incorporated the agreement into a
10
retains jurisdiction to enforce its judgments, including consent decrees.” Hook v. Arizona Dep’t
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

consent decree. California v. Randtron, 284 F.3d 969, 974 (9th Cir. 2002). “A district court
11
12
of Corrections, 972 F.2d 1012, 1014 (9th Cir. 1992). Moreover, as recognized in Kokkonen,
13
federal courts have ancillary jurisdiction to address violations of prior orders, such as consent
14
decrees or orders incorporating settlement agreements, even where an action had previously been
15
dismissed with prejudice. Therefore, this Court has jurisdiction to enforce the stipulated order,
16
notwithstanding the dismissal.
17
Defendant must therefore show cause why he should not be held in contempt for the
18
alleged violations of the stipulated injunctive relief and protective order.
19
CONCLUSION
20
For the reasons discussed above, plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED to the extent that
21
defendant is required to show cause for why he should not be held in contempt for violating the
22
stipulated injunctive relief and protective order. A show cause hearing is hereby set for
23
JANUARY 10, 2013 AT 8:00 A.M. Pre-hearing filings are due by JANUARY 7 AT NOON.
24
25
IT IS SO ORDERED.
26
27
Dated: December 24, 2012.

WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

28
3