Brinker v. JP Morgan Chase N.A. et al

Filing 170

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS by Magistrate Judge Paul Singh Grewal granting 157 (psglc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/28/2015)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

ALAN BRINKER,
Plaintiff,

8

(Re: Docket No. 157)

10

JP MORGAN CHASE N.A., et al.,
Defendants.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

14
15
16
17
18
19

In November 2014, Plaintiff Alan Brinker and Defendants JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.
and California Reconveyance Company reached a settlement.1 In April of this year, the court
issued an order enforcing that settlement.2 And yet—six months after the court’s order, and nearly
a year after the parties settled—this case remains on the docket. Now before the court is a motion
by Defendants to dismiss the case pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).3 Defendants argue that
Brinker has failed to comply with the court’s order enforcing the settlement. Brinker opposes,
claiming that Defendants are the ones who have not held up their end of the bargain.4 For the
reasons set forth below, the court GRANTS Defendants’ motion.

20
21

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO
DISMISS

v.

9

13

Case No. 13-cv-01805-PSG

Defendants have now offered a settlement contract that comports with the term sheet that
Brinker agreed to in 2014, but Brinker nevertheless refuses to sign. Brinker objects to Chase’s

22
23
1

See Docket No. 116.

2

See Docket No. 148.

3

See Docket No. 157.

4

See Docket No. 163.

24
25
26
27
28

1
Case No. 13-cv-01805-PSG
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS

1

refusal to repair his credit until he submits proof acceptable to Chase, but the term sheet contained

2

exactly the same language.5 He argues that Chase should first provide a detailed accounting, but

3

the court has already ordered that this is not necessary.6 He claims that the settlement agreement

4

should not release his claims against any Defendant other than Chase, but his own notice of

5

settlement included exactly that release.7 Brinker raises several complaints about other conditions

6

of the settlement agreement, but none of these renders the settlement agreement materially

7

different from the term sheet that Brinker already has signed. The court finds that Brinker’s

8

failure to sign the settlement agreement is unjustified—and, therefore, so is his failure to obey the

9

court’s order.
In Ferdik v. Bonzelet, the Ninth Circuit listed the factors that a court should consider in

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

deciding whether to dismiss a case for failure to comply with a court order.8 They include “(1) the

12

public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to manage its docket;

13

(3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on

14

their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic alternatives.”9 These factors strongly favor

15

dismissal. The case has remained pending for almost a year after the parties settled it. Defendants

16

have incurred, and continue to incur, substantial costs in trying to enforce the settlement. And the

17

court has pursued less drastic alternatives, including ordering Brinker to sign the settlement, to no

18

avail. At this point, the court’s—and Defendants’—only remaining remedy for Brinker’s

19

intransigence is dismissing the case. The case is DISMISSED with prejudice.

20
21
22
23
24
25

5

See Docket No. 130-1, Ex. A at 1 (“Upon submission of proof acceptable to Chase, Chase will
submit updated information to credit reporting agencies.”).
6

See Docket No. 148 at 10-11.

7

See Docket No. 116 at 1 (“Plaintiff Alan Brinker and Defendants JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.
and California Reconveyance Company have reached a settlement as to the above-captioned
matter which will resolve all causes of action against all remaining defendants.”).
8

963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992).

9

Id. (quoting Thompson v. Housing Auth., 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986)).

26
27
28

2
Case No. 13-cv-01805-PSG
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS

1

SO ORDERED.

2

Dated: October 28, 2015
_________________________________
PAUL S. GREWAL
United States Magistrate Judge

3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

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

3
Case No. 13-cv-01805-PSG
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS