Rushing et al v. Alon USA, Inc. et al

Filing 182

ORDER by Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton re 175 Motion for Summary Judgment; 177 Motion for Entry of Consent Judgment.(pjhlc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/25/2016) (Additional attachment(s) added on 3/25/2016: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service) (vlkS, COURT STAFF).

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7
8
9

MARK RUSHING, et al.,

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13

Case No. 06-cv-7621-PJH

Plaintiffs,

10
v.

AMBEST, INC., et al.,

ORDER RE MOTION FOR ENTRY OF
CONSENT JUDGMENT; ORDER RE
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Defendants.

14
15
16

Before the court is plaintiffs’ motion for entry of consent judgment in favor of

17

defendant Chevron USA INC. (“Chevron”), which Chevron opposes; and Chevron’s

18

motion for summary judgment against plaintiff Lesley Duke, which is unopposed. Having

19

read the parties’ papers and carefully considered their arguments and the relevant legal

20

authority, the court hereby DENIES the motion for entry of consent judgment, and

21

GRANTS Chevron’s motion for summary judgment.

22

First, with regard to plaintiffs’ motion for consent judgment, Chevron entered into a

23

conditional settlement on November 7, 2013, with representatives of plaintiff classes.

24

Among other things, the settlement agreement provided that judgment was to be entered

25

in favor of Chevron as to the claims arising under California law in the above-entitled

26

action. Because Mr. Duke did not agree to dismiss his claims against Chevron and the

27

other defendants, the MDL court severed those claims and remanded them to this court

28

in February 2015.

1

However, per the terms of the settlement agreement, Chevron requested that the

2

court defer actual entry of judgment until the settlement agreement either became final or

3

was rejected. This court subsequently granted Chevron’s motion for entry of final

4

judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b), stayed entry of that judgment

5

pending final approval and appeal, or expiration of the time to appeal, of the parties’

6

classwide settlement. The final settlements are currently on appeal with the Tenth

7

Circuit.

8
9

The settling plaintiffs in this case now seek entry of consent judgment in favor of
Chevron. Chevron opposes the motion on the basis that the settlement agreement
provides that judgment shall not be entered until after all appeals of final approval have

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

been resolved. The court is more persuaded by Chevron’s argument, and DENIES

12

plaintiffs’ motion. Plaintiffs have not articulated any reason that the court should enter

13

judgment now rather than at the conclusion of the appeals, and in particular have not

14

identified any prejudice to them arising from the stay of the action.

15

Second, with regard to Chevron’s motion for summary judgment against plaintiff

16

Lesley Duke, the court finds that because Mr. Duke did not opt out of any of the

17

settlement classes, his claims are covered and released by the class settlement.

18

Approval of a class action settlement constitutes a final judgment on the merits, and thus

19

binds all Rule 23(b)(2) class members and all Rule 23(b)(3) class members, unless the

20

latter opt out of the settlement. See Reyn’s Pasta Bella, LLC v. Visa USA Inc., 442 F.3d

21

741, 746 (9th Cir. 2006); see also Schwarzer, et al., Federal Civil Procedure Before Trial

22

(2015 ed.) § 10:917. A class action judgment is res judicata as to the claims of class

23

members who did not opt out, so long as their interests were adequately protected. See

24

id. Here, the MDL court found that representation was adequate in the MDL class action;

25

that notice to class members was adequate; and that Chevron gave notice of the

26

proposed settlement to designated state and federal officials pursuant to CAFA.

27
28

Moreover, Mr. Duke (who is currently proceeding in pro per) appeared at the case
management conference where the court set the summary judgment briefing schedule (to
2

1

wh
hich all the parties agre
p
eed), and yet he filed n opposition to Chev
y
no
vron’s motio
on.

2

Ac
ccordingly, Chevron’s motion is GRANTED, as stated a
C
m
G
above and f the reas
for
sons argued
d

3

by Chevron in its motion.
n

4
5

IT IS SO ORD
DERED.

6

Da
ated: March 25, 2016
h

7
8

__
__________
__________
__________
_______
PH
HYLLIS J. H
HAMILTON
Un
nited States District Ju
s
udge

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
3