Khazal v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A.
Filing
56
ORDER by Judge Hamilton granting 45 Motion for Settlement; finding as moot 51 Motion for Summary Judgment; finding as moot 55 Stipulation (pjhlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/18/2015)
1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
7
REBECCA KHAZAL,
8
Plaintiff,
9
10
v.
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO
ENFORCE SETTLEMENT
JP MORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A.,
Defendant.
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
Case No. 13-cv-4076-PJH
12
13
14
Defendant’s motion to enforce settlement came on for hearing before this court on
15
November 18, 2015. Plaintiff Rebecca Khazal (“plaintiff”) appeared through her counsel,
16
Arkady Itkin. Defendant JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. (“defendant”) appeared through its
17
counsel, Jason Allen. Having read the papers filed in conjunction with the motion and
18
carefully considered the arguments and the relevant legal authority, and good cause
19
appearing, the court hereby GRANTS defendant’s motion, as stated at the hearing and
20
as follows.
21
As the court stated at the hearing, the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Facebook, Inc. v.
22
Pacific Northwest Software, Inc. controls the outcome of this motion. See 640 F.3d 1034
23
(9th Cir. 2011). The Facebook court explained that “a term may be ‘material’ in one of
24
two ways: It may be a necessary term, without which there can be no contract; or, it may
25
be an important term that affects the value of the bargain.” Id. at 1037. And while
26
“omission of the former would render the contract a nullity,” a “contract that omits terms of
27
the latter type is enforceable under California law, so long as the terms it does include
28
are sufficiently definite for a court to determine whether a breach has occurred, order
1
2
spe
ecific performance or award dam
mages.” Id. at 1037-38
8.
In this case, the parties’ inab
p
bility to finallize their se
ettlement ag
greement p
primarily
3
ste
ems from th disagre
heir
eement over liquidated damages terms. Wh plaintiff maintains
d
hile
4
tha these terms are mat
at
terial – and indeed, the court reco
ognizes the importan to the
eir
nce
5
parties – the court finds that these terms do no rise to th level of “n
c
t
ot
he
necessary” terms,
”
6
“without which there can be no contract.” Thu defendant’s motion to enforce the
h
n
us,
n
e
7
set
ttlement is GRANTED
D.
8
9
At the hearing, the court gav the partie three op
e
ve
es
ptions to res
solve the
dis
sagreement over the re
t
emaining disputed term (1) the court coul fill in the terms
ms:
e
ld
itse (2) the parties could continue to negotiat over the missing terms, or (3) the terms
elf,
p
e
te
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
cou be stricken altoget
uld
ther. The parties agre on optio (2), and they were given until
p
eed
on
12
De
ecember 16 2015 to agree to ter
6,
a
rms and to submit a st
tipulated dis
smissal. If the parties
13
are unable to agree to te
e
erms by tha date, the court will strike the dis
at
sputed term and
ms
14
enter its own dismissal.
15
16
Having found that the settlem
g
t
ment agree
ement is enf
forceable, d
defendant’s motion for
s
r
summary judg
gment is DE
ENIED as moot.
m
17
IT IS SO ORDER
S
RED.
18
ated: November 18, 20
015
Da
19
20
__
__________
__________
__________
_______
PH
HYLLIS J. H
HAMILTON
Un
nited States District Ju
s
udge
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?