Smith et al v. City of Santa Clara et al

Filing 196

ORDER re clarification. Signed by Judge Lucy Koh on 11/4/2013. (lhklc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/4/2013)

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 CLARIFYING THIS COURT’S
ORDER DENYING PLAINNTIFFS’
MOTION TO ENFORCE SETTLEMENT
(ECF No. 187)

The Court previously denied Plaintiffs’ motion to enforce the settlement and Plaintiffs’
motion to hear the motion to enforce settlement on shortened time. ECF No. 187 (“Order”).
On November 4, 2013, Plaintiffs sought clarification of the Order. ECF No. 195 (“Mot. for
Clarification”). Plaintiffs asked whether the Order’s denial of Plaintiffs’ motion to enforce the
settlement applies not just to the City of Santa Clara and the Santa Clara Police Department, but
also to the individual defendants (Kenneth Henderson, Greg Hill, Clay Rojas). Id. at 1, 3.
The Order applies to all defendants, including the individual defendants. At the settlement
conference in this case, see ECF No. 177 (“Settlement Conference Transcript”), it was clear to all
parties 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.
187 at 1-2. This included the individual defendants, who entered the settlement agreement subject
Case No.: 11-CV-03999-LHK
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO ENFORCE SETTLEMENT AND MOTION TO SHORTEN TIME

1
2
3
4
5

to the City Council’s approval. See Settlement Conference Transcript at 8-9 (Defendants
Henderson and Hill stating that they enter the settlement agreement conditioned on the approval of
the City Council, and Defendant Rojas’s lawyer agreeing to the settlement agreement for Rojas
subject to the City Council’s approval). Thus, the Order denying Plaintiffs’ motion to enforce the
settlement applies to Plaintiffs’ claims against the individual defendants as well.

6
7
IT IS SO ORDERED.
8
9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11

Dated: November 4, 2013
_________________________________
LUCY H. KOH
United States District Judge

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
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