Lizalde et al v. Advanced Planning Services, Inc. et al

Filing 168

ORDER Denying Without Prejudice 163 Joint Motion for Permanent Injunction. Signed by Judge Gonzalo P. Curiel on 5/16/2013. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(srm)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

RAUL LIZALDE and VEBS, INC., a
California Corporation,

12

Plaintiffs,

13

v.

14

ADVANCED PLANNING
SERVICES, INC. et al.,

15

Defendants.

16

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil No. 3:10-cv-0834-GPC-RBB
ORDER DENYING WITHOUT
PREJUDICE JOINT MOTION
FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION

17
18

On April 19, 2013, Plaintiffs and defendants Larry Chalmers, Beth Chalmers,

19

and Angela Parrish (“Defendants”) filed a Joint Motion for Permanent Injunction

20

(“Joint Motion” or “Stipulation”). (ECF No. 163.) In the Joint Motion, the Plaintiffs

21

and Defendants indicate they “have resolved their disputes by settlement and, as a

22

condition of that settlement, agreed to stipulate to entry of this Stipulated Permanent

23

Injunction.” Plaintiffs and Defendants thereafter set forth the terms of their proposed

24

permanent injunction.

25

“[T]he mere fact that the parties agree that the court should exercise continuing

26

jurisdiction is not binding upon the court.” Arata v. Nu Skin Int’l, Inc., 96 F.3d 1265,

27

1269 (9th Cir. 1996). “According to well established principles of equity, a plaintiff

28

seeking a permanent injunction must satisfy a four-factor test before a court may grant
3:10-cv-0834-GPC-RBB

1

such relief.” eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C., 547 U.S. 388, 391 (2006). Indeed,

2

injunctive relief is an “extraordinary and drastic remedy that is never awarded as of

3

right.” Perfect 10, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 653 F.3d 976, 980 (9th Cir. 2011) (internal

4

quotation marks omitted) (citing Munaf v. Geren, 553 U.S. 674, 689-90 (2008)). Thus,

5

one requirement for obtaining injunctive relief is a showing “that remedies available

6

at law, such as monetary damages, are inadequate to compensate for” the plaintiff’s

7

“irreparable injury.” Id.

8
9

With the foregoing in mind, the Court is not prepared to enter a permanent
injunction pursuant to the Stipulation.

The Stipulation reveals Plaintiffs and

10

Defendants’ agreement to settle this action; it does not indicate that Defendants “will

11

not abide by the agreed upon settlement, such that a permanent injunction and retention

12

of jurisdiction to enforce the settlement is required.” Capitol Records, Inc. v. Kurnizki,

13

2007 WL 214564, at *1 (E.D. Cal. 2007). Accordingly, the Plaintiffs and Defendants’

14

Joint Motion is DENIED. Because Plaintiffs and Defendants indicate that entry of a

15

stipulated permanent injunction is a “condition” of their settlement agreement, the

16

Court’s denial is WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Should Plaintiffs and Defendants wish

17

to file a joint motion that demonstrates the requirements for a permanent injunction are

18

satisfied, the Court will permit them to do so. Should Plaintiffs and Defendants wish

19

to proceed with execution and performance of their settlement agreement

20

notwithstanding the Court’s denial of their request for a permanent injunction, the

21

Court directs Plaintiffs and Defendants to file a joint motion for dismissal on or before

22

May 31, 2013.

23
24

SO ORDERED.
DATED: May 16, 2013

25
26

HON. GONZALO P. CURIEL
United States District Judge

27
28
2

3:10-cv-0834-GPC-RBB