Facebook Inc. et al v. Profile Technology, LTD et al

Filing 105

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO ENFORCE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT; ORDERING FURTHER EXPEDITED BRIEFING. Signed by Judge Nathanael M. Cousins on May 2, 2014. (nclc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/2/2014)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

11
12 FACEBOOK INC., and others,

Case No. 13-cv-00459 PSG (NC)

13

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’
MOTION TO ENFORCE
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

Plaintiffs,

14

v.

15 PROFILE TECHNOLOGY, LTD, and
16

Dkt. 94, 95, 102

others,
Defendants.

17
18
19

This order preliminarily addresses the defendants’ motion to enforce the settlement

20 terms agreed to by the parties in a signed writing on February 17, 2014. At some point, all
21 litigation must come to an end. Facebook Inc. v. Pacific Northwest Software, Inc., 640 F.3d
22 1034, 1042 (9th Cir. 2011). This case is near that point.
23

First, the Court considers whether the settlement terms created an enforceable

24 agreement. The Court finds that the parties intended to bind each other by signing the
25 agreement. The agreement sets forth the material terms, even though the parties
26 contemplated a long-form agreement that would contain additional terms. Furthermore, all
27 parties to the agreement were sophisticated and represented by experienced and skilled
28 counsel.
Case No. 13-cv-00459 PSG (NC)
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’
MOTION TO ENFORCE SETTLEMENT

1

Next, the Court considers whether it has jurisdiction to enforce the agreement. The

2 answer is yes. The Court may retain jurisdiction to enforce a settlement agreement.
3 Kokonnen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 381-82 (1994). Here, the parties
4 “consent to jurisdiction of U.S. District Court NDCA, Magistrate Judge Cousins, to resolve
5 any disputes arising from this Settlement.” Dkt. 94-1, Ex. A (redacted). The Court finds
6 that the defendants’ motion to enforce is a dispute “arising from” the settlement, and the
7 parties have consented to resolution of that dispute by the undersigned Magistrate Judge.
8

Finally, the Court orders further expedited briefing to address additional questions:

9 (1) was there a breach of the agreement by one or more parties?
10 (2) if so, what remedy should be ordered?
11

Simultaneous briefs, not to exceed ten pages per side, must be filed and served at 4:00

12 p.m. on May 9. The Court will hold a further hearing on May 14 at 2:00 p.m. in Courtroom
13 A, San Francisco. The briefing, and the hearing, will be public unless an order to seal is
14 granted in advance.
15
16

IT IS SO ORDERED.

17

Date: May 2, 2014

_________________________
Nathanael M. Cousins
United States Magistrate Judge

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Case No. 13-cv-00459 PSG (NC)
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’
MOTION TO ENFORCE SETTLEMENT

2