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