Smith et al v. City of Santa Clara et al

Filing 187

ORDER by Judge Lucy Koh denying 182 Motion for Settlement; denying 184 Motion to Shorten Time (lhklc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/28/2013)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

SAN JOSE DIVISION
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

)
)
JOSEPHINE SMITH, an individual, et al.,
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
v.
)
)
CITY OF SANTA CLARA, a public entity, et al. )
)
Defendants.
)
)

Case No.: 11-CV-03999-LHK
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’
MOTION TO ENFORCE SETTLEMENT
AND MOTION TO SHORTEN TIME

Plaintiffs filed a motion to enforce the settlement on October 23, 2013. ECF No. 182. That
same day, Plaintiffs also filed a motion to hear the motion to enforce settlement on shortened time.
ECF No. 184. On October 24, 2013, Defendants filed an opposition to Plaintiffs’ motion to hear the
motion to enforce settlement on shortened time. ECF No. 186. For the reasons set forth below, the
Court hereby DENIES both Plaintiffs’ motion to enforce the settlement and Plaintiffs’ motion to
hear the motion to enforce settlement on shortened time.
Magistrate Judge Joseph Spero held a settlement conference in this case on July 16, 2013.
ECF No. 177. At that conference, it was clear to all parties involved that the settlement agreement
reached between the parties and entered onto the record was subject to the approval of the
settlement agreement by the Santa Clara City Council. See ECF No. 177 at 4:14-23 (Magistrate
Judge Spero stating, “I’m going to recite what I understand to be the terms if the settlement. . . .
Case No.: 11-CV-03999-LHK
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO ENFORCE SETTLEMENT AND MOTION TO SHORTEN TIME

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13

you will have a binding settlement, subject to two conditions that have to be met to make it finally
binding. Number one, it still needs to be approved by the City Council, the City of Santa Clara”);
6:20-21 (Magistrate Judge Spero stating, “This settlement is subject to the approval of the City
Council of the City of Santa Clara”); 7-8 (Plaintiffs’ counsel agreeing that the settlement was
contingent on the approval of the City Council). It is undisputed here that the City Council rejected
the parties’ settlement on August 20, 2013. ECF No. 186 at 1; ECF No. 182 at 4. Because the
settlement was contingent upon such approval, and the City Council refused to approve the
settlement, this Court declines to enforce the settlement at Plaintiffs’ request. Thus, this Court
denies Plaintiffs’ motion to enforce the settlement and denies Plaintiffs’ motion to shorten time as
moot.
The Court has continued the trial twice at the request of Plaintiffs’ counsel. The trial will
begin on December 9, 2013, and the parties shall submit their pre-trial filings by November 21,
2013, as ordered in this Court’s case management order of August 28, 2013. ECF No. 179.

14
15
IT IS SO ORDERED.
16
17
18
19

Dated: October 28, 2013
_________________________________
LUCY H. KOH
United States District Judge

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Case No.: 11-CV-03999-LHK
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO ENFORCE SETTLEMENT AND MOTION TO SHORTEN TIME