Hu et al v. Plehn-Dujowich et al

Filing 145

Order by Magistrate Judge Alex G. Tse granting 131 Motion for Entry of Stipulated Judgment; granting 133 Motion to Withdraw as Counsel. (agtlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/4/2022)

1
2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

3

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

4
5

QIUZI HU, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

6
7
8
9
10

Case No. 18-cv-01791-AGT

v.
JOSE M. PLEHN-DUJOWICH, et al.,
Defendants.
I.

ORDER GRANTING (I) MOTION FOR
ENTRY OF STIPULATED JUDGMENT
(II) MOTION TO WITHDRAW AS
COUNSEL
Re: Dkt. Nos. 131, 133

MOTION FOR ENTRY OF STIPULATED JUDGMENT

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Two years ago, the Court approved the parties’ class-action settlement and entered judgment

12

in favor of the plaintiffs. See Dkt. 123–24. Under the settlement agreement, the defendants agreed

13

to pay the settlement administrator $150,000 within ninety days of the approval date, and to pay an

14

additional $10,000 per month until the total amount paid reached the judgment amount, of $695,000.

15

See Dkt. 99-1, Settlement §§ 3.1, 3.2.

16

The settlement also required the defendants and class counsel to execute a “Joint Stipulation

17

for Conditional Entry of Final Judgment.” Id. §§ 2.16, 3.3. Pursuant to the joint stipulation, the

18

defendants agreed that if they failed to make full and timely payments to the settlement administra-

19

tor, then class counsel could seek relief from judgment, pursuant to Rule 60(b), and request entry of

20

a stipulated judgment with more onerous terms. See id. §§ 3.3.2, 13.3, Ex. 1. Under the stipulated

21

judgment, the total judgment amount would increase from $695,000 to $1,000,000, and the defend-

22

ants would admit as true certain facts related to liability. See Settlement §§ 2.34, Ex. 1.

23

After the Court approved the settlement, the defendants timely made their initial payment of

24

$150,000. But soon after, they started missing monthly-payment due dates. At first, the payments

25

were just late; but then the payments stopped coming altogether, despite repeated efforts by class

26

counsel to obtain them. See Dkt. 131-1, Dhillon Decl. ¶¶ 2–37, Exs. A–E. Before the payments

27

stopped, the defendants had paid $130,000 in monthly installments. See Dkt. 131 at 6–7. This was

28

in addition to their initial payment of $150,000. Now, however, the defendants are at least $60,000

1

in arrears. See id.; Dhillon Decl. ¶ 37.

2

In response, class counsel has asked the Court to vacate the original judgment and to enter

3

the stipulated judgment, with an offset for the amount the defendants have paid. The requested

4

relief is appropriate. The defendants have failed to pay what they owe; class counsel has sent the

5

defendants multiple notices of default; and more than 30 days have passed since notice was given,

6

but the defendants have failed to cure. By the terms of the settlement and the parties’ joint stipula-

7

tion, entry of the stipulated judgment is now warranted. See Settlement §§ 2.16, 13.4.
The original judgment is hereby vacated, pursuant to Rule 60(b)(6), and the parties’ stipu-

9

lated judgment will be entered momentarily. The stipulated judgment will be for $720,000, which

10

is $1,000,000, the stipulated-judgment amount, minus $280,000, the amount the defendants have

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

8

paid to date. As part of the stipulated judgment, class counsel will also be awarded $14,760 in

12

attorneys’ fees and $24 in costs. These fees and costs were reasonably incurred to enforce the set-

13

tlement agreement. See Dkt. 144, Dhillon Supp. Decl. ¶¶ 1–17. And in their joint stipulation, the

14

parties agreed that class counsel would be “entitled to recover reasonable fees and costs incurred in

15

enforcing the Final Judgment.” Dkt. 137 at 4.

16
17

As for the joint stipulation, class counsel filed it provisionally under seal. No good cause to
keep it under seal has been identified, so the Court will enter it on the public docket.
II.

18

MOTION TO WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL

19

Defense counsel has lost contact with the defendants—despite repeated emails and phone

20

calls—and seeks to withdraw as counsel. See Dkt. 133. Counsel cannot be expected to adequately

21

represent his clients if he cannot communicate with them, so the Court finds good cause for coun-

22

sel’s request and grants his motion.

23
24

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: April 4, 2022

25
___________________________
ALEX G. TSE
United States Magistrate Judge

26
27
28
2