Streeter v. County of Santa Clara Department of Corrections et al

Filing 80

ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken DENYING 73 , 74 REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/4/2011)

Streeter v. County of Santa Clara Department of Corrections et al

Doc. 80

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA EDDIE J. STREETER, JR., ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA, ) et al., ) ) Defendants. ) ___________________________ ) No. C 04-3969 CW (PR) ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION (Docket nos. 73, 74)

BACKGROUND Plaintiff, a state prisoner, filed the above-referenced pro se

11 civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 regarding the 12 conditions of his incarceration. 13 On September 1, 2006, Plaintiff met Defendants'

14 representative, County Liability Claims Adjustor Ted Althausen, and 15 the two sides reached a settlement agreement. (Def.'s Resp., Ex.

16 A.) The agreement required Defendants to pay Plaintiff $49,000.00, 17 to make the check payable to Plaintiff's father, "Eddie J. Streeter 18 Sr.," to call Plaintiff's father to verify his Louisville, Kentucky 19 mailing address, and to mail the check to that address. (Id.) 20 These terms were handwritten into the settlement agreement and 21 initialed by both parties. (Id.) Plaintiff signed the settlement 22 agreement and the "Stipulation and Order Dismissing Entire Action 23 With Prejudice" in the presence of Mr. Althausen. (Althausen Decl. 24 ¶¶ 5-6.) 25 On or about September 12, 2006, Althausen confirmed 26 Plaintiff's father's mailing address by telephone. (Id. at ¶ 8.) 27 28 On September 13, 2006, Althausen mailed a $49,000 check to

Dockets.Justia.com

1 Plaintiff's father at the correct Louisville, Kentucky address. 2 (Def.'s Resp., Ex. B.) 3 cashed. 4 On September 15, 2006, the check was

(Def.'s Resp., Ex. D.)

On September 20, 2006, the signed "Stipulation and Order

5 Dismissing Entire Action With Prejudice" was filed, and the Court 6 dismissed this action with prejudice. 7 On March 1, 2010, Plaintiff filed the present motions

8 entitled, "Ex Parte Motion (Breach of Contract)" and "Writ Mandate 9 Re: Payment Order (Breach of Contract)" (docket nos. 73, 74). 10 Plaintiff claims that "an agreement for $49,600.00 was reached" and 11 that the "check should've been only made payable to Eddie Streeter 12 'Jr.'" (Mot. at 1-2.) Because his father allegedly failed to 13 forward the funds from the $49,000.00 check and because Defendants 14 wrote the check to his father instead of to him, Plaintiff seeks 15 $49,600.00 plus interest, or alternatively that the "case be able 16 to be reopened." (Id. at 4.) 17 In an Order dated February 14, 2011, the Court construed 18 Plaintiff's motions as a request for reconsideration under Rule 19 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, stating: 20 Plaintiff argues that this is a breach of their 21 settlement agreement. It seems that Plaintiff's father cashed the check, claiming that it was in his name and 22 for his personal use. Plaintiff is now attempting to reclaim his settlement payment because he will soon be 23 released from prison. The Court construes Plaintiff's motion as a request for reconsideration. 24 25 26 27 28 Where the Court's ruling has resulted in a final judgment or order, as here, a motion for reconsideration may be based either on Rule 59(e) (motion to alter or amend judgment) or Rule 60(b) (motion for relief from judgment) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Because Plaintiff's motion was not filed within ten days of entry of judgment, as is required for a Rule 59(e) motion, it will be treated as a Rule 60(b) motion. 2

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15

Rule 60(b) provides for reconsideration where one or more of the following is shown: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence which by due diligence could not have been discovered before the Court's decision; (3) fraud by the adverse party; (4) the judgment is void; (5) the judgment has been satisfied; (6) any other reason justifying relief. Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b); School Dist. 1J v. ACandS Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993). "Rule 60(b) [] provides a mechanism for parties to seek relief from a judgment when 'it is no longer equitable that the judgment should have prospective application,' or when there is any other reason justifying relief from judgment." Jeff D. v. Kempthorne, 365 F.3d 844, 853-54 (9th Cir. 2004) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)). Subparagraph (6) requires a showing that the grounds justifying relief are extraordinary. "'[T]he major grounds that justify reconsideration involve an intervening change of controlling law, the availability of new evidence, or the need to correct a clear error or prevent manifest injustice.'" Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe of Indians v. Hodel, 882 F.2d 364, 369 n.5 (9th Cir. 1989) (quoting United States v. Desert Gold Mining Co., 433 F.2d 713, 715 (9th Cir. 1970)). (Feb. 14, 2011 Order at 2-3.) The Court then directed Defendants

16 17 18 19 20 to file a response to the motion for reconsideration. On February 16, 2011, Defendants filed their response, stating that they have "complied with the terms of the settlement agreement" and "acted specifically as demanded by Plaintiff as a (Def.'s Resp.

21 condition of securing the dismissal of his lawsuit." 22 at 2.) 23

Plaintiff had fourteen days from the date Defendants filed

24 their response, or until March 2, 2011, to file a reply to the 25 response. (Feb. 14, 2011 Order at 3.) To date, Plaintiff has not

26 filed a reply. 27 28 DISCUSSION Usually, "upon repudiation of a settlement agreement, the

3

1 frustrated party may sue anew for breach of the agreement and may 2 not . . . reopen the underlying litigation after dismissal." 3 Keeling v. Sheet Metal Workers Intern. Ass'n, Local Union 162, 937 4 F.2d 408, 410 (9th Cir. 1991). However, "[r]epudiation of a

5 settlement agreement that terminated litigation pending before a 6 court constitutes an extraordinary circumstance, and it justifies 7 vacating the court's prior dismissal order," where there is 8 evidence of "bad faith noncompliance." Id. at 410-11. 9 Here, there is no evidence of repudiation of the settlement 10 agreement. Despite making conclusory allegations regarding the 11 terms of the settlement agreement, Plaintiff provides no evidence 12 that the parties agreed to a settlement amount of $49,600.00 or 13 that the check should have been made payable to himself, "Eddie J. 14 Streeter, Jr." As mentioned above, the record shows the terms of 15 the settlement agreement contradict Plaintiff's allegations because 16 the handwritten additions state that the settlement check for 17 $49,000.00 would be made payable to "Eddie J. Streeter, Sr." 18 Defendants have shown that they complied with the terms of the 19 agreement. (Def.'s Resp., Exs. A, B.) Because there is no 20 21 evidence of "bad faith noncompliance" on Defendants' part, no 22 extraordinary circumstances exist to warrant reconsideration of the 23 Court's dismissal of this action. See Keeling, 937 F.2d at 410-11. If

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

24 Accordingly, Plaintiff's request for reconsideration is DENIED. 25 Plaintiff wishes to file a breach of contract claim or a suit 26 against his father for refusing to forward the funds from his 27 settlement check, no such relief is justified in this Court. 28 Instead, Plaintiff could seek relief by pursuing those claims in

4

1 state court. 2 3 CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff's request for

4 reconsideration (docket nos. 73, 74) is DENIED. 5 6 This Order terminates Docket nos. 73 and 74. IT IS SO ORDERED.

7 DATED: 3/4/2011 8 9 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 CLAUDIA WILKEN United States District Judge

5

1 2 3 STREETER, 4 5 6 v. Plaintiff,

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Case Number: CV04-03969 CW CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA DEPARTMENT 7 OF CORRECTIONS et al, 8 9 Defendant. /

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

10 I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. District Court, Northern District of California. 11 12 That on March 4, 2011, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by placing said copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by depositing said 13 envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery receptacle located in the Clerk's office. 14 15 16 Eddie J. Streeter V-17183 CA State Prison - Corcoran 17 B2-02-243 P.O. Box 3461 18 Corcoran, CA 93212 19 Dated: March 4, 2011 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Richard W. Wieking, Clerk By: Nikki Riley, Deputy Clerk

6