Arnaudov et al v. California Delta Mechanical, Inc et al

Filing 183

ORDER REQUESTING FURTHER BRIEFING ON PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO ENFORCE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AGAINST TODOR KITCHUKOV. Re: Dkt. No. 178 . Plaintiffs must provide the requested information by December 15. Signed by Judge Nathanael Cousins on 12/8/2015. (lmh, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/8/2015)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 MARTIN ARNAUDOV, and others, Case No. 13-cv-02306 NC Plaintiffs, 9 11 INC., TODOR KITCHUKOV, and others, ORDER REQUESTING FURTHER BRIEFING ON PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO ENFORCE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AGAINST TODOR KITCHUKOV 12 Re: Dkt. No. 178 10 v. CALIFORNIA DELTA MECHANICAL, Defendants. 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Presented to the Court is plaintiffs’ motion to enforce their settlement agreement against individual defendant Todor Kitchukov. Dkt. No. 178. Plaintiffs seek a judgment against Kitchukov under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b), which permits entry of final judgment as to one or more parties in a multi-party case “only if the court determines that there is no just reason for delay.” Because plaintiffs’ motion is unclear as to the amount and justification for the requested judgment, the Court requests additional information. I. Procedural History The settlement agreement (Dkt. No. 158-2) was approved by this Court on September 28, 2015. Dkt. No. 176. After the Court approved the settlement, corporate defendants Delta Mechanical, Inc., California Delta Mechanical, Inc., and Nevada Delta Mechanical, Inc. gave notice that they had filed bankruptcy petitions. Dkt. No. 177. The automatic bankruptcy stay does not extend to non-bankrupt defendant Kitchukov. Boucher v. Shaw, 572 F.3d 1087, 1093-94 (9th Cir. 2009). The Court has subject matter jurisdiction to enforce the settlement agreement because 28 Case No. 13-cv-02306 NC ORDER FOR FURTHER BRIEFING 1 it expressly retained jurisdiction at the time it approved the settlement. Dkt. No. 176; see 2 Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of America, 511 U.S. 375 (1994). In addition, all 3 parties have consented to the jurisdiction of a magistrate judge under 28 U.S.C. § 636. Dkt. 4 Nos. 13, 17, 57. Kitchukov has not responded to the motion to enforce. See Dkt. No. 182 5 (notice setting Nov. 30 deadline to respond). 6 Under the terms of the settlement agreement, defendants Delta Mechanical, Inc. and 7 Kitchukov are “individually and jointly and severally liable for all payments obligations set 8 forth” in the Agreement. Settlement ¶ 1(f), Dkt. No. 158-2. Furthermore, judgment may be 9 rendered against “any or all of the Defendants (except Nevada Delta Mechanical, Inc.) in 10 the event of a default.” Id. And, specifically, plaintiffs are entitled to seek “immediate 11 judgment” against Kitchukov and DMI in the “full amount” of all unpaid sums if a default 12 is not cured. Settlement ¶ 1(h). 13 14 II. Request for Additional Information Plaintiffs’ motion for enforcement seeks a judgment against Kitchukov, but the 15 amount is not clear. The proposed order says $1,567,261.81. Dkt. No. 181. Page 14 of the 16 plaintiffs’ brief says $1,583,289.26. Dkt. No. 178. Page 15 of the same brief says 17 $1,583,289.6. Id. So, first, plaintiffs must clarify the amount they seek. 18 Second, plaintiffs must explain the calculation and evidence that supports their 19 requests for $391,815.44 in liquidated damages and $15,997.50 in “additional attorneys’ 20 fees.” Dkt. No. 178 at 14. (Again, plaintiffs’ proposed order uses a different number for 21 the liquidated damages: $391,815.49). The Court acknowledges that the settlement 22 agreement ¶ 2(h) contains a liquidated damages provision in the event of default, but does 23 not understand how plaintiffs have made their calculation. 24 Plaintiffs must provide the requested information by December 15. 25 IT IS SO ORDERED. 26 Date: December 8, 2015 _________________________ Nathanael M. Cousins United States Magistrate Judge 27 28 Case No. 13-cv-02306 NC ORDER FOR FURTHER BRIEFING 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?