International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers District 9 Pension Plan et al v. Solano Communications, Inc.
Filing
39
ORDER Re: Stipulation for Entry of Judgment, Re: 38 , 35 . Signed by Judge Lucy H. Koh on May 28, 2013. (lhklc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/28/2013)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
9
SAN JOSE DIVISION
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF
)
ELECTRICAL WORKERS DISTRICT 9
)
PENSION PLAN; NORTHERN CALIFORNIA- )
NORTHERN NEVADA SOUND &
)
COMMUNICATION DISTRICT NO. 9
)
HEALTH & WELFARE TRUST FUND;
)
NORTHERN CALIFORNIA-NORTHERN
)
NEVADA SOUND & COMMUNICATION
)
DISTRICT NO. 9 APPRENTICESHIP &
)
TRAINING COMMITTEE; JOHN O’ROURKE, )
as Trustee of the above,
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
v.
)
)
SOLANO COMMUNICATIONS, INC., a
)
California corporation,
)
)
Defendant.
)
)
)
Case No.: 10-CV-01280-LHK
ORDER RE: STIPULATION FOR
ENTRY OF JUDGMENT
On November 18, 2010, the parties filed a Stipulation for Contingent Order of Dismissal
22
(“Stipulation”), indicating that they had settled this case and had agreed to dismiss it without
23
prejudice, and that Plaintiffs could reopen the case if necessary to enforce the settlement
24
agreement. ECF No. 21.
25
On November 22, 2010, the Court entered a Contingent Order of Dismissal, dismissing the
26
action without prejudice. ECF No. 23. That Order provided that the Court would reopen the case
27
if any party certified that the consideration set forth in the settlement had not been delivered. Id.
28
1
Case No.: 10-CV-01280-LHK
ORDER RE: STIPULATION FOR ENTRY OF JUDGMENT
1
On October 16, 2012, Plaintiffs filed a motion to reopen the case (“Motion to Reopen”),
2
accompanied by the required proofs of service, and declarations certifying that Defendant had
3
failed to make required payments. See ECF Nos. 28; 29; 30; 35. On December 10, 2012, the Court
4
ordered that this action be reopened. ECF No. 36.
5
The parties’ Stipulation further provided: “If the settlement payments are not made in a
6
timely fashion or if the Settlement Agreement is otherwise breached, Plaintiffs can file a
7
Stipulation for Entry of Judgment attached to the Settlement Agreement as Exhibit ‘A’. The Court
8
shall then Order the Entry of Judgment.” ECF No. 21 at 2.
In Plaintiffs’ October 16, 2012 Motion to Reopen, Plaintiffs also sought entry of judgment
10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
9
pursuant to the Stipulation. See ECF No. 35. However, the Court found that Plaintiffs’ proposed
11
order entering judgment was not in the form of the stipulated judgment that the parties had
12
included in their Stipulation. ECF No. 36 (citing ECF No. 21 at 8). The Court also expressed
13
concern that Plaintiffs’ counsel had indicated uncertainty as to the precise amount of fees to be
14
awarded. Id. (citing ECF No. 29 at 4). The Court allowed Plaintiffs to “insert the appropriate
15
amount and file the stipulated judgment with appropriate documentation of the precise amount due
16
by December 17, 2012.” Id.
17
On December 17, 2012, Plaintiffs filed the “Stipulation for Entry of Judgment” that had
18
been included in their original 2010 Stipulation. See ECF No. 38 (Stipulation for Entry of
19
Judgment originally included in ECF No. 21). Plaintiffs filled in the appropriate blank space for
20
the amount of judgment with the figure $18,970.56. ECF No. 38 at 2. Plaintiffs also included two
21
attachments, one entitled “Solano Communications,” ECF No. 38-1, and the other entitled “Legal
22
Insight Inquiry: Case Activity,” ECF No. 38-2. The filing does not include any explanation of
23
what these two attachments represent, or how the contents of these attachments relate to the
24
requested $18,970.56.
25
Plaintiffs are hereby ORDERED to file a declaration explaining how the requested
26
$18,970.56 was calculated, with explicit reference to accompanying documentation, by June 11,
27
2013. Defendant shall file any objections or request for a hearing on this matter by June 25, 2013.
28
IT IS SO ORDERED.
2
Case No.: 10-CV-01280-LHK
ORDER RE: STIPULATION FOR ENTRY OF JUDGMENT
1
2
Dated: May 28, 2013
_________________________________
LUCY H. KOH
United States District Judge
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
Case No.: 10-CV-01280-LHK
ORDER RE: STIPULATION FOR ENTRY OF JUDGMENT
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?