Bei v. Santucci

Filing 58

ORDER DENYING HEARING by Judge Paul S. Grewal denying 53 Motion for Hearing (psglc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/10/2013)

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

NORMAN BEI,
Plaintiff,

12
13
14

v.
NICHOLAS J. SANTUCCI, aka NICO J.
SANTUCCI,
Defendant.

15
16
17
18

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 5:11-cv-5061-PSG
ORDER DENYING MOTION
FOR HEARING
(Re: Docket No. 53)

On July 18, 2013, this court altered the default judgment previously entered in this case. As
altered, the court entered judgment for Plaintiff Norman Bei (“Bei”) in the amount of $10,000. 1

19
Defendant Nicholas Santucci (“Santucci”) assured the court at that time that he was able and
20
21

willing to satisfy that judgment. 2 Bei alleges that thus far Santucci has failed to do so and requests

22

a hearing to enforce the judgment. 3 Santucci objects to the hearing on the ground that judgment

23

has been entered. 4

24
25

1

See Docket No. 52.

26

2

See id. at 7.

27

3

See Docket No. 53.

28

4

See Docket No. 54.
1

Case No.: 5:11-cv-5061-PSG
ORDER

In its July 18 order, the court explained to Bei that although the parties had entered into a

1
2

settlement agreement, Bei had not taken the appropriate steps to enforce that agreement with the

3

court. 5 Rather than moving for default judgment, the appropriate course of action would have been

4

to file a motion under California Code of Civil Procedure § 664.6, asking the court to enforce the

5

agreement. 6 However, Bei did not take advantage of that remedy when it was available to him. 7

6

Rather, by securing a judgment, Bei eliminated this court’s jurisdiction under Section 664.6, which,

7
8

as Santucci points out, only applies to pending cases.
In order to serve the interests of justice without ruling where it no longer has jurisdiction,

9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

the court altered the existing judgment to reflect the amount that would have been due between the

11

parties under the settlement: $10, 000. In doing so, the court did not suddenly reclaim jurisdiction

12

over the case, or incorporate the settlement agreement into its ruling for further review. Instead, it

13
14

simply adjusted the amount of the final judgment entered to reflect the former agreement between
the parties.

That judgment now stands, and this court’s jurisdiction to further adjudicate matters

15
16

is at an end.
With a final judgment entered in his favor, Bei must proceed under Federal Rule of Civil

17
18

Procedure 69 to use the power of the court to recover his judgment. Rule 69 allows Bei to utilize

19

the procedures available under California law to enforce a money judgment. However, this court

20

can do nothing further to assist in that cause, as judgment has already been entered.

21

Bei’s motion is hereby DENIED.

22
23
24
25
26
5

See Docket No. 52 at 5.

6

Id.

27
28

2

Case No.: 5:11-cv-5061-PSG
ORDER

1
2

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: October 10, 2013

3

_________________________________
PAUL S. GREWAL
United States Magistrate Judge

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.: 5:11-cv-5061-PSG
ORDER