Situ et al v. Wong et al

Filing 86

Order by Hon. James Donato denying 77 Motion for Correction of Judgment. (jdlc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/8/2015)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

XIONG MAN SITU, et al.,

Case No. 13-cv-05102-JD

Plaintiffs,
8
v.

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
CORRECTION OF JUDGMENT

9
10

EUGENE WONG, et al.,

Re: Dkt. No. 77

Defendants.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

Pending before the Court is plaintiffs’ motion “for an order amending the July 17

13

judgment, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(a) and (b) to state that the Court will retain jurisdiction

14

on the settlement agreement and its performance.” Dkt. No. 77 at 1. The Court denies the motion.

15

The Court finds no “clerical mistake or a mistake arising from oversight or omission” that

16

needs correction pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(a). Plaintiffs rely heavily on the

17

fact that “the settlement terms placed on [the] record contemplated that this Court would retain

18

jurisdiction over the settlement.” Dkt. No. 80 at 2. But that is not what the record shows. At the

19

mandatory settlement conference that produced the agreement (but not yet a written settlement

20

agreement), counsel asked Magistrate Judge Nandor Vadas, “I’m not sure that you will be able to

21

retain jurisdiction over any disputes that should arise, but some language to the effect that we can

22

at least come here and attempt to get the result?” Magistrate Judge Vadas replied, “Normally

23

that’s what I would do. I would retain jurisdiction as the settlement judge during the pendency of

24

the resolution of the fine points, so to speak, once the documents are exchanged.” Dkt. No. 78-1 at

25

9 (emphasis added). Consequently, even under the terms of plaintiffs’ own argument, the Court is

26

not persuaded that the parties clearly placed on the record a mutual desire and understanding that

27

the Court would retain jurisdiction over the performance (as opposed to the negotiation) of the

28

settlement agreement. The fact that the Court did not retain such jurisdiction in its July 21, 2014

1

order of dismissal therefore cannot be characterized as a “clerical mistake or a mistake arising

2

from oversight or omission.”

3

Nor does the Court find that relief is warranted under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

4

60(b)(1). Plaintiffs argue that the Court issued a judgment “which, if read literally, could not be

5

complied with” because it “required plaintiffs to certify compliance before any payments were

6

due.” Dkt. No. 80 at 7. But the July 21 order provided that:

7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

The parties hereto, by their counsel, having advised the court that
they have agreed to a settlement of this cause, IT IS HEREBY
ORDERED that this cause of action is dismissed without prejudice;
provided, however, that if any party hereto shall certify to this court,
within ninety (90) days, with proof of service thereof, that the
agreed consideration for said settlement has not been delivered over,
the foregoing order shall stand vacated and this cause shall forthwith
be restored to the calendar and be set for trial.

12

If no certification is filed, after passage of ninety (90) days, the
dismissal shall be with prejudice.

13

Dkt. No. 58. The Court’s order nowhere “required plaintiffs to certify compliance before any

14

payments were due.” Rather, as plaintiffs admit, despite their expectation that “the settlement

15

agreement would be quickly signed based upon the fact that the settlement was placed on the

16

record,” it “dragged on . . . for months, which caused this problem.” Dkt. No. 78 at 2. Moreover,

17

plaintiffs’ counsel “did not read carefully the Court’s judgment” and plaintiffs failed to request the

18

judgment be amended before the dismissal became with prejudice. Id. Plaintiffs instead filed

19

their present request for the change to the judgment over six months after the Court entered it. The

20

Court does not find “just terms” for relief under these circumstances. Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(1).

21

Perhaps most importantly, the Court is not persuaded that its present ruling will deprive

22

plaintiffs of “the opportunity to present their case or a claim.” Dkt. No. 80 at 8. As the Supreme

23

Court has observed, enforcement of a settlement agreement is “more than just a continuation or

24

renewal of the dismissed suit.” Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co., 511 U.S. 375, 378 (1994).

25

Rather, the facts underlying the alleged breach of settlement agreement and those underlying the

26

merits of plaintiffs’ claims in the now-dismissed action “have nothing to do with each other,” and

27

it would “neither be necessary nor even particularly efficient that they be adjudicated together” by

28

the same court. Id. at 380. Plaintiffs may seek their desired relief in state court, with no loss of
2

1

efficiency. See id. at 382 (“[E]nforcement of the settlement agreement is for state courts, unless

2

there is some independent basis for federal jurisdiction.”).

3

Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, and “[i]t is to be presumed that a cause lies

4

outside this limited jurisdiction.” Id. at 377. Although it is true the Court could have chosen to

5

retain jurisdiction over the performance of the settlement agreement at issue, that it did not was

6

not the result of mistake, oversight or omission, and the Court does not see “just terms” to grant

7

plaintiffs’ late request to make that change at this juncture.

8

Plaintiffs’ motion is denied.

9

IT IS SO ORDERED.

10

Dated: April 8, 2015

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
________________________
JAMES DONATO
United States District Judge

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3