Petersen-Dean Inc. v. Folk et al
Filing
144
ORDER ON POST-SETTLEMENT MOTIONS. Re: ECF 99 , 108 , 128 , 129 , 131 , 132 , 136 , 137 . Signed by Judge Nathanael Cousins. (lmh, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/15/2019)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
PETERSEN-DEAN INC.,
Plaintiff,
12
14
ORDER ON POST-SETTLEMENT
MOTIONS
v.
13
DIETER FOLK, et al.,
Defendants.
15
Case No. 15-cv-05522-NC
Re: ECF 99, 108, 128, 129, 131, 132,
136, 137
16
17
Before the Court are a tidal wave of motions filed after the 2016 settlement and
18
dismissal of this copyright and trademark infringement case. Plaintiff Petersen-Dean
19
seeks to vacate the dismissal, to enforce the settlement, and to enter judgment (ECF 99,
20
137), while defendants oppose these requests and seek to compel enforcement of the
21
settlement through arbitration (ECF 108). The central question for resolving all the
22
motions is whether this Court possesses jurisdictional authority to enforce the settlement
23
agreement. Because I conclude that the Court lacks jurisdiction, I decline to wade into the
24
deeper waters of interpreting and enforcing the parties’ settlement agreement.
25
I.
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
26
Only the most relevant settlement-related events are summarized here. On March
27
24, 2016, I referred the case to Magistrate Judge Sallie Kim in San Francisco for a
28
settlement conference. Judge Kim diligently facilitated settlement communications among
the parties, as documented at ECF 57, 59, 79, and 88. A transcript of the settlement
2
proceedings before Judge Kim on August 11, 2016, is filed under seal at ECF 108-5, and
3
in part is publicly described in the declaration of Jim Petersen at ECF 101. On August 25,
4
2016, Petersen-Dean filed a settlement status report. ECF 82. That report stated that this
5
matter had mostly settled but awaited approval by defendants Jeffrey Maxfield and Bryce
6
Robicheau. “Upon execution of said document by the remaining Defendants all of the
7
actions will be dismissed in their entirety.” ECF 82 at p. 2. On September 14, 2016,
8
counsel for all parties reported to me that the case settled and that a dismissal would be
9
filed that same day. ECF 92. As promised, later that day the parties filed a “Stipulation of
10
Dismissal With Prejudice” pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). The Stipulation of
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
1
Dismissal was accompanied by a proposed order. ECF 93-1. The proposed order
12
requested that “the instant matter is dismissed with prejudice as to Defendants JAJ
13
Roofing, Inc. dba Citadel Roofing and Solar; Dieter Folk; and Wendy Zubillaga.” Id. I
14
granted the proposed order. ECF 94. The Stipulation of Dismissal did not recount the
15
terms of settlement and did not ask the Court to retain jurisdiction to enforce the
16
settlement. And the Order of Dismissal, ECF 94, did not retain jurisdiction.
17
Yet after the settlement and dismissal, the parties returned to litigation in this Court.
18
Now before the Court are ECF 99 (Petersen-Dean’s motion to vacate dismissal, motion for
19
writ of attachment and right to attach order, and motion to enforce settlement agreement);
20
ECF 108-3 (Defendant’s opposition to ECF 99 and counter-motion to compel arbitration of
21
settlement); ECF 128 (Petersen-Dean’s motion for leave to file supplemental declaration of
22
George Milionis); ECF 129 (Petersen-Dean’s motion to file under seal); ECF 131
23
(Stipulation to file Milionis declaration); ECF 132 (motion for hearing); ECF 136 (motion
24
to seal portions of Petersen-Dean’s motion for entry of judgment and enforcement of
25
settlement agreement); and ECF 137 (Petersen-Dean’s motion to enforce settlement and
26
entry of judgment per settlement agreement). On February 13, 2018, I issued an Order to
27
Show Cause Re: Jurisdiction. ECF 118. I ordered the parties to show cause why the Court
28
has jurisdiction to consider the motions at ECF 99 and 108 asking the Court to enforce the
2
1
settlement agreement. This Order complements the Order to Show Cause at ECF 118.
2
Petersen-Dean’s motion at ECF 137 (to enforce settlement and enter judgment) was
3
noticed to Judge Kim. But under Civil Local Rule 7-1(b), motions must be directed to the
4
Judge to whom the action is assigned, except as that Judge may otherwise order. As this
5
action is assigned to me, not Judge Kim, I assess ECF 137 in this order.
6
7
II.
ANALYSIS
Federal district courts are courts of limited jurisdiction; “[t]hey possess only that
8
power authorized by Constitution and statute, which is not to be expanded by judicial
9
decree.” Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994) (citation
omitted). Accordingly, “[i]t is to be presumed that a cause lies outside this limited
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
jurisdiction, and the burden of establishing the contrary rests upon the party asserting
12
jurisdiction.” Id.; Chandler v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 598 F.3d 1115, 1122 (9th
13
Cir. 2010).
14
In the post-settlement motions before this Court, the only assertion of jurisdiction is
15
that the Court should continue or reopen the jurisdiction it exercised over the underlying
16
federal copyright and trademark case. There is no claim that the motions to enforce the
17
settlement agreement independently raise a federal question (they do not) or are between
18
parties with diverse citizenship (they are not). The question presented is whether federal
19
subject matter jurisdiction may be reestablished after settlement even when the parties did
20
not ask, and the Court did not retain jurisdiction at the time of dismissal.
21
In general, ‘[e]nforcement of [a] settlement agreement . . . whether through award
22
of damages or decree of specific performance, is more than just a continuation or renewal
23
of the dismissed suit, and hence requires its own basis for jurisdiction.’” Alvarado v. Table
24
Mountain Rancheria, 509 F.3d 1008, 1017 (9th Cir. 2007) (quoting Kokkonen, 511 U.S. at
25
378). But “a federal court has jurisdiction to enforce a settlement agreement in a dismissed
26
case when the dismissal order incorporates the settlement terms, or the court has retained
27
jurisdiction over the settlement contract” and a party alleges a violation of the settlement.
28
3
1
Id. Under those circumstances, a breach of the agreement is a violation of the court’s
2
order, and the court has jurisdiction to enforce the agreement. Kokkonen, 511 U.S. at 381;
3
e.g., Nordstrom v. Ryan, 2019 WL 2304039, at *2 (D. Ariz. May 15, 2019),
4
reconsideration denied, 2019 WL 2303321 (D. Ariz. May 30, 2019).
5
None of the exceptions in Kokkonen applies here. The parties in their Stipulation of
6
Dismissal did not ask the Court to retain jurisdiction and did not expressly incorporate the
7
terms of the settlement agreement. ECF 93. The Court’s dismissal order accordingly did
8
not retain jurisdiction. ECF 94.
9
The Court finds that the post-settlement disputes presented here are of the same
type that were dismissed in Kokkonen, O’Connor v. Colvin, 70 F.3d 530 (9th Cir. 1995),
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
and Warner v. Cate, Case No. 11-cv-05039 YGR, 2017 WL 5560651 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 20,
12
2017). Here, as in those cases, the Court lacks jurisdiction to enforce the settlement
13
agreement.
14
One of the arguments made by Petersen-Dean in favor of jurisdiction is that Judge
15
Kim retained jurisdiction as part of the settlement agreement. I am not persuaded that this
16
is sufficient for this Court to exert jurisdiction now. First, as a legal question the
17
settlement judge “retaining jurisdiction” is not one of the exceptions to limited jurisdiction
18
identified by the Supreme Court in Kokkonen. 511 U.S. at 381. There, the Supreme Court
19
identified two ways that the presiding judge could maintain jurisdiction: (1) retaining
20
jurisdiction as part of the order of dismissal, or (2) incorporating the terms of the
21
settlement into the dismissal order. I am not persuaded that I should expand Kokkonen to
22
apply to terms in a settlement agreement that are not incorporated into the order of
23
dismissal. Second, as a factual matter, Judge Kim did not retain jurisdiction to enforce the
24
settlement agreement here. What Judge Kim said was: “And the Federal Court will retain
25
jurisdiction over the stipulated judgment.” ECF 108-5 at 5:16-17. This is something less
26
than retaining jurisdiction to interpret and enforce the entire settlement agreement, which
27
is what both parties ask the Court to do now.
28
In addition, the Court is not persuaded that plaintiff’s motion to set aside the
4
dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6) (for “any other reason that
2
justifies relief”) is timely or is needed to accomplish justice. A motion under Rule 60(b)
3
must be made within a “reasonable time.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(c)(1). Here, the dismissal
4
was entered September 14, 2016, and plaintiff’s motion to set aside the dismissal was filed
5
January 17, 2018, which is more than 16 months later. Rule 60(b)(6) is a “grand reservoir
6
of equitable power,” Harrell v. DCS Equip. Leasing Corp., 951 F.2d 1453, 1458 (5th Cir.
7
1992), and it affords the Court the discretion and power “to vacate judgments whenever
8
such action is appropriate to accomplish justice.” Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524, 542
9
(2005). The decision to grant Rule 60(b)(6) relief is a “case-by-case inquiry that requires
10
the trial court to intensively balance numerous factors, including the competing policies of
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
1
finality of judgments and the incessant command of the court’s conscience that justice be
12
done in light of all the facts.” Phelps v. Alameida, 569 F.3d 1120, 1133 (9th Cir. 2009)
13
(citations omitted). Balancing these factors here, the Court finds that setting aside
14
dismissal in this forum is not needed to accomplish justice. The parties have available
15
alternatives to litigating a breach of settlement dispute in this Court: arbitration and state
16
court.
17
18
19
Accordingly, I DENY the motions at ECF 99, 108-3 and 137 for lack of
jurisdiction.
Finally, I GRANT unopposed motions ECF 128 (motion for leave to file George
20
Milionis declaration and for leave to file certain materials under seal), ECF 129 (motion to
21
file certain materials under seal), ECF 131 (stipulation for leave to file supplemental
22
declaration of Milionos), and ECF 136 (motion to file under seal) for good cause shown.
23
And I DENY ECF 132 (motion for hearing) pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b) because in
24
my discretion no oral argument was needed to resolve the motions.
25
26
27
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: November 15, 2019
_____________________________________
NATHANAEL M. COUSINS
United States Magistrate Judge
28
5
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?