Gian Biologics, LLC v. Cellmedix Holdings, LLC et al

Filing 79

OPINION AND ORDER denying 75 Motion for stipulated final judgment; denying 78 Motion to Seal. The parties shall notify the Court within 14 days whether the case needs to be reopened. See Opinion and Order for details. Signed by Judge John E. Steele on 4/26/2017. (RKR)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
FORT MYERS DIVISION
GIAN
BIOLOGICS,
Delaware limited
corporation,

LLC,
a
liability

Plaintiff,
v.

Case No: 2:15-cv-645-FtM-29CM

CELLMEDIX HOLDINGS, LLC, a
New Jersey limited liability
company,
PERFUSION.COM,
INC., a Florida corporation,
NORTH AMERICAN STERILIZATION
AND PACKAGING COMPANY, INC.,
a New Jersey corporation,
BRYAN V. LICH, an individual
Florida resident, and PAUL
WIEBEL, JR. , an individual
New Jersey resident,
Defendants.
OPINION AND ORDER
This matter came before the Court on the parties' Joint Motion
for Entry of Stipulated Final Judgment (Doc. #75) filed on March
28, 2017, wherein the parties requested that the Court retain
jurisdiction to enforce an undisclosed settlement agreement.

Upon

review, the Court directed the parties to file a memorandum of
reasons why jurisdiction should be retained.

(Doc. #76.)

On

April 12, 2017, plaintiff filed a Memorandum of Reasons (Doc. #77)

and an Unopposed Motion to Seal Document in Support of Memorandum
of Reasons for the Court to Retain Jurisdiction (Doc. #78).
The parties seek to dismiss this case with prejudice pursuant
to a Settlement Agreement which requires the Court to retain
jurisdiction over its enforcement for six years.
confidential

provisions,

the

parties

also

seek

Because of
to

file

the

Settlement Agreement under seal for the Court’s consideration.
In the Memorandum of Reasons, plaintiff argues that another
judge in the Middle District has retained jurisdiction in a similar
case with similar terms; that the retention of jurisdiction would
be for a limited time through at least December 6, 2022 1; that
federal

jurisdiction

would

exist

to

enforce

the

Settlement

Agreement under 28 U.S.C. § 1338 because “an infringement analysis
may be required” raising a “substantial question of patent law”;
and that the Court is permitted to retain jurisdiction.

The Court

is unpersuaded that it should retain jurisdiction for almost six
years.
The fact that another judge in the Middle District of Florida
has

retained

dispositive.

jurisdiction

in

a patent

case

is

certainly

not

The Court does not doubt that it has the authority

to do so, but only questions the need to do so for the length of

1

Plaintiff suggests March 31, 2023, which allows a few extra
months for a reporting period.

- 2 -

time the parties contemplate.

The parties essentially want to

dismiss the patent suit and have the Court retain jurisdiction
over a potential future breach of contract claim.

A federal court

may or may not have jurisdiction over such a breach of contract
claim.

“That is, federal jurisdiction over a state law claim will

lie if a federal issue is: (1) necessarily raised, (2) actually
disputed, (3) substantial, and (4) capable of resolution in federal
court without disrupting the federal-state balance approved by
Congress.”

Gunn v. Minton, 133 S. Ct. 1059, 1065 (2013).

If

resolution of the breach is only “backward-looking”, it has no
impact on the prior federal patent litigation.

Id. at 1066–67.

But cf. Jang v. Boston Sci. Corp., 767 F.3d 1334, 1337 (Fed. Cir.
2014) (“[c]ontract claims based on underlying ongoing royalty
obligations, [ ] raise the real world potential for subsequently
arising infringement suits affecting other parties.”).

The Court

need not resolve that issue.
Filing a Settlement Agreement under seal is problematic for
the

parties.

“The

common-law

right

of

access

to

judicial

proceedings, an essential component of our system of justice, is
instrumental in securing the integrity of the process.”

Chicago

Tribune Co. v. Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc., 263 F.3d 1304, 1311
(11th Cir. 2001) (citation omitted).
agreements,

- 3 -

With regard to settlement

[i]t is immaterial whether the sealing of the
record is an integral part of a negotiated
settlement between the parties, even if the
settlement comes with the court’s active
encouragement.
Once a matter is brought
before a court for resolution, it is no longer
solely the parties’ case, but also the
public’s
case.
Absent
a
showing
of
extraordinary circumstances . . . the court
file must remain accessible to the public.
Thus, because it is the rights of the public,
an absent third party, that are at stake, any
member of the public has standing to view
documents in the court file. . . .
Brown v. Advantage Eng’g, Inc., 960 F.2d 1013, 1016 (11th Cir.
1992).

A desire to prevent use of a record in another proceeding

is “simply not an adequate justification for its sealing.”

Wilson

v. Am. Motors Corp., 759 F.2d 1568, 1571 (11th Cir. 1985).
Further, under this Court’s Local Rules, “[n] o settlement
agreement shall be sealed absent extraordinary circumstances, such
as the preservation of national security, protection of trade
secrets or other valuable proprietary information, protection of
especially vulnerable persons including minors or persons with
disabilities,

or

protection

of

nonparties

without

opportunity or ability to protect themselves.”
1.09(a).

either

the

M.D. Fla. R.

In any event, “[u]nless otherwise ordered by the Court

for good cause shown, no order sealing any item pursuant to this
section shall extend beyond one year, although a seal is renewable
by a motion. . . .”

M.D. Fla. R. 1.09(c).

- 4 -

Plaintiff seeks leave to file the settlement agreement under
seal based on the parties’ agreement to limit disclosure, and
because the document contains confidential royalty and payment
terms.

The

extraordinary

Court

does

not

circumstances

find

these

warranting

to
the

be

the

sealing

type

of

of

the

settlement agreement.
After review of the memorandum of reasons, the Court will
deny the Motion to Seal (Doc. #78) and the Joint Motion for Entry
of Stipulated Final Judgment (Doc. #75).

The parties may elect

to file a stipulation for dismissal of this case, without the
caveat that the Court retain jurisdiction.

In the alternative,

if retention of jurisdiction is a necessary component of the
settlement, the parties shall so notify the Court and the matter
will be reopened for further proceedings pursuant to the Case
Scheduling and Management Order.
Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED:
1. Plaintiff’s Unopposed Motion to Seal Document in Support
of

Memorandum

of

Reasons

for

the

Court

to

Retain

Jurisdiction (Doc. #78) is DENIED.
2. The parties' Joint Motion for Entry of Stipulated Final
Judgment (Doc. #75) is DENIED.

- 5 -

3. The parties shall notify the Court within fourteen (14)
days whether the case needs to be reopened.
DONE and ORDERED at Fort Myers, Florida, this
of April, 2017.

Copies:
Counsel of Record

- 6 -

26th

day