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