Grushkin v. Security National Properties Holding Company, LLC

Filing 63

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO VACATE STIPULATED JUDGMENT; VACATING STIPULATED JUDGMENT; RETAINING JURISDICTION TO IMPOSE SANCTIONS. For the reasons stated on the record at the hearing, the Court grants defendant's motion, and, accordingly, vacates the stipulated judgment filed by the parties and entered by the Court on May 28, 2015. Notwithstanding the above ruling, the Court retains jurisdiction to determine whether an attorney or party to the instant action has abused the judicial process, and, if so, what sanction would be appropriate. Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on December 22, 2015. (mmclc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/22/2015)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
11
12
ALLAN D. GRUSHKIN,

No. C-13-5457 MMC

13
Plaintiff,

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S
MOTION TO VACATE STIPULATED
JUDGMENT; VACATING STIPULATED
JUDGMENT; RETAINING JURISDICTION
TO IMPOSE SANCTIONS

14
v.
15
16

SECURITY NATIONAL PROPERTIES
HOLDING COMPANY, LLC,

17

Defendant.
/

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Before the Court is defendant’s “Motion to Vacate Judgment and to Dismiss the
Case for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction,” filed October 2, 2015, pursuant to Rule
60(b)(4) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff has filed opposition, to which
defendant has replied. The matter came on regularly for hearing on December 4, 2015.
Ryan F. Thomas of Johnston | Thomas appeared on behalf of plaintiff. Benjamin C.
Johnson of the Boesch Law Group appeared on behalf of defendant. Having considered
the parties’ respective written submissions and the arguments of counsel, the Court rules
as follows.

1

1. For the reasons stated on the record at the hearing, the Court hereby GRANTS

2

defendant’s motion, and, accordingly, VACATES the stipulated judgment filed by the

3

parties and entered by the Court on May 28, 2015.

4

2. Notwithstanding the above ruling, the Court hereby RETAINS jurisdiction to

5

determine whether an attorney or party to the instant action “has abused the judicial

6

process, and, if so, what sanction would be appropriate.” See Willy v. Coastal Corp., 503

7

U.S. 131, 138, 139 n.5 (1992) (holding “sanction[s] may constitutionally be applied even

8

when subject-matter jurisdiction is eventually found lacking”).

9
10

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: December 22, 2015
MAXINE M. CHESNEY
United States District Judge

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2