Silvia et al v. Verizon Communications, Inc. et al

Filing 224

ORDER by Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley denying 220 Motion to Modify Permanent Injunction (ahm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/27/2020)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

DEBBIE SILVIA, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Case No. 15-cv-04677-JSC
ORDER RE: MOTION TO MODIFY
PERMANENT INJUNCTION

v.
EA TECHINICAL SERVICES, INC., et al.,

Re: Dkt. No. 220

Defendants.

12
13

On June 22, 2018, this Court granted the motion of Defendant Engineering Associates,

14

LLC (“EA”) for a permanent injunction to enjoin an action Plaintiff Debbie Silvia filed in

15

California state court against EA. (Dkt. No. 207.) Now before the Court is Ms. Silvia’s motion to

16

modify the injunction to permit Ms. Silvia to dismiss EA from the state action with prejudice and

17

to amend that action to add overtime claims against MCI Communications Services, Inc. (“MCI”)

18

and Verizon Business Network Services, Inc. (“Verizon Business”). (Dkt. No. 220.) After careful

19

consideration of the parties’ briefing, the Court concludes that oral argument is not necessary, see

20

N.D. Cal. Civ. L.R. 7-1(b), and VACATES the July 30, 2020 hearing. The injunction does not bar

21

Ms. Silvia’s dismissal with prejudice of EA from the state action. And, while adding MCI and

22

Verizon Business to the state action may prove futile, and even frivolous, the injunction does not

23

bar that conduct either.

24
25

DISCUSSION
After this Court granted Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, and Ms. Silvia filed

26

her appeal with the Ninth Circuit, Ms. Silvia filed a new lawsuit in state court against EA, Verizon

27

Communications, Inc. and Verizon California, Inc. This new state action alleged the same claims

28

upon which the Court had granted summary judgment in EA’s favor. (Dkt. No. 201.) EA

1

subsequently moved this Court for a permanent injunction enjoining Ms. Silvia “from pursuing

2

duplicative claims against EA in the California state court action[.]” (Dkt. No. 200 at 6.) The

3

motion noted that although the state action named Verizon California, Inc. and Verizon

4

Communications, Inc. in the caption, there were no allegations as to these entities. (Id at 6.) EA

5

also argued that EA would suffer irreparable harm if an injunction was not issued. (Id. at 18.)

6

The Court granted EA’s motion. (Dkt. No. 207 (“PI Order”).) The Court concluded that

7

Ms. Silvia’s state law claims asserted against EA were barred by claim preclusion under

8

California’s “primary rights doctrine” and that the relitigation exception to the Anti-Injunction Act

9

thus applied under binding Ninth Circuit caselaw. The Court further determined, in its discretion,

10

that an injunction was warranted, reasoning:

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

While the state court is well qualified to apply California claim
preclusion rules, as there is no doubt that claim preclusion bars the
state claims against EA, and requiring EA to litigate the same causes
of action (even if only briefly) in two different jurisdictions at the
same time is prejudicial to EA and a waste of judicial resources, the
Court exercises its discretion to issue the requested injunction.

12
13
14
(Id. at 9.)
15

Ms. Silvia now asks the Court to modify the injunction to allow her to dismiss her claims
16
against EA with prejudice and to move to amend her complaint to add overtime claims against
17
MCI Communications Services, Inc. and Verizon Business Network Services, Inc.. EA, MCI, and
18
Verizon all oppose the motion. Ms. Silvia does not require the relief sought because the
19
permanent injunction does not prohibit either action she seeks to take.
20
First, the permanent injunction does not bar Ms. Silvia from dismissing her claims with
21
prejudice against EA. The injunction barred Ms. Silvia from prosecuting her claims against EA.
22
(Dkt. Nos. 200, 207.) Dismissing with prejudice is the opposite of prosecuting. Indeed, in later
23
moving to find Ms. Silvia in contempt, EA argued, in effect, that the permanent injunction
24

required Ms. Silvia to dismiss her state action against EA. (Dkt. No. 213 at 4 (“Plaintiff has failed

25
to comply with [the PI] Order. Plaintiff has failed to dismiss the New Action and has instead
26
allowed the New Action to continue[.]”).)
27
Second, the permanent injunction also does not bar Ms. Silvia from moving to amend her
28
2

1

complaint to add MCI and Verizon as defendants. The Court’s injunction was limited to EA.

2

Neither MCI nor Verizon moved for a permanent injunction and EA did not ask for an injunction

3

on their behalf. This omission is unsurprising given that Ms. Silvia’s state action did not assert

4

any claims against MCI or Verizon at the time.
Third, to the extent MCI and Verizon ask the Court to modify the injunction to prohibit

5
6

Ms. Silvia from amending her state court complaint to assert claims against them, the Court

7

declines to do so. An important factor in the Court’s decision to issue the injunction was that Ms.

8

Silvia was currently appealing the very same claims against EA that she was asserting in the state

9

action and that requiring EA to litigate the same issue in two jurisdictions at the same time was

10

prejudicial. No such prejudice exists here as the Ninth Circuit appeal has been finally resolved.
The Anti-Injunction Act “broadly commands” that state courts “shall remain free from

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

interference by federal courts.” Smith v. Bayer Corp., 564 U.S. 299, 306 (2011) (citing Atlantic

13

Coast Line R. Co. v. Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers, 398 U.S. 281, 282 (1970)) (internal

14

quotation marks omitted). The Act has only “three specifically designed exceptions.” Id. (internal

15

quotation marks and citation omitted). Those exceptions “are narrow and are not [to] be enlarged

16

by loose statutory construction.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). “[D]oubts as

17

to the propriety of a federal injunction against state court proceedings should be resolved in favor

18

of permitting the state courts to proceed.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

19

Indeed, “[t]he fact that an injunction may issue under the Anti-Injunction Act does not mean that it

20

must issue.” Chick Kam Choo v. Exxon Corp., 486 U.S. 140, 151 (1988) (emphasis in original).

21

The Court is not persuaded that a new injunction should issue in these circumstances.
CONCLUSION

22

For the reasons explained above, Plaintiff’s motion to modify the permanent injunction is

23
24

denied as unnecessary.
This Order disposes of Docket No. 220.

25
26

//

27

//

28

//
3

1
2

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: July 27, 2020

3
4
JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY
United States Magistrate Judge

5
6
7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4