Greene v. Executive Coach & Carriage
Filing
361
ORDER Denying 351 Motion to Enjoin and Denying as Moot 360 Motion for Partial Relief Under Rule 60(b)(5). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that pursuant to the Courts Order incorporating the terms of the parties Settlement Agreement, (ECF No. 344 ), Defendants shall fund the settlement by April 21, 2019, pursuant to the foregoing. Signed by Chief Judge Gloria M. Navarro on 4/20/2019. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - ASB)
1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
2
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
3
4
ROBERT G. GREENE, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated,
5
Plaintiffs,
vs.
6
7
8
JACOB TRANSPORTATION SERVICES,
LLC, et al.,
Defendants.
9
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No.: 2:09-cv-00466-GMN-CWH
ORDER
10
Pending before the Court is the Motion to Enjoin, (ECF No. 351), filed by Plaintiffs
11
12
Robert G. Greene, Thomas Schemkes, and Gregory Green (collectively “Plaintiffs”), on behalf
13
of themselves and all others similarly situated. Defendants Jacob Transportation Services, LLC
14
(“JTS”) and Carol and James Jimmerson (collectively “Defendants”) filed a Response, (ECF
15
No. 353).
On April 11, 2019, the Court held a hearing on Plaintiffs’ Motion to Enjoin and the
16
17
parties were ordered to file additional briefing, by April 18, 2019, addressing whether the state
18
court orders interfere with the Settlement Order, and addressing whether the All Writs Act or
19
Anti-Injunction Act applies to this case. (Mins. Proceedings, ECF No. 354). Plaintiffs and
20
Defendants submitted supplemental briefs, (ECF Nos. 355, 356). 1 Additionally, Defendants
21
filed a Motion for Partial Relief Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 60(b)(5), (ECF
22
No. 360). For the reasons discussed herein, Plaintiffs’ Motion to Enjoin and Defendants’
23
Motion for Partial Relief Under Rule 60(b)(5) are DENIED.
24
25
1
Defendants also submitted an Amended Declaration of Andrew Pastor, (ECF No. 359), in support of
Defendants’ Supplemental Response, (ECF No. 356).
Page 1 of 10
1
I.
BACKGROUND
2
The instant Motion arises from the Court’s Order granting final approval to the parties’
3
class action settlement. (See Settlement Order, ECF No. 344). Plaintiffs are persons formerly
4
employed by Defendant JTS as limousine drivers. (See First Am. Compl. ¶¶ 16, ECF No. 204).
5
Defendants James and Carol Jimmerson are the sole officers and owners of JTS. (Id. ¶ 8).
6
Plaintiffs initiated this class action suit (the “Greene Class Action”) against Defendants,
7
asserting claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) and Nevada wage-and-hour law.
8
(Id. ¶¶ 32–99).
9
Relevant here, the Court’s Order on the parties’ settlement (the “Settlement Order”)
10
incorporated by reference the parties’ settlement agreement (the “Settlement Agreement”) and
11
provides that “Defendants shall fund the settlement by April 21, 2019.” (Settlement Order
12
3:20–21, ECF No. 344). The Court expressly “retain[ed] jurisdiction to enforce the terms of
13
the settlement, including the payment of the settlement fund.” (Id. 3:22–23). The Court entered
14
its Settlement Order on September 26, 2018, and the clerk of court entered judgment the
15
following day, closing the case, (ECF Nos. 344, 345).
16
JTS subsequently sued 17 class members (collectively the “Drivers”) in state court for
17
allegedly stealing limousine rides during their employment with JTS and failing to report their
18
earnings (the “State Actions”). In one of the State Actions, the class member, or Driver, moved
19
to dismiss for JTS’s failure to pursue a compulsory counterclaim in the Greene Class Action.
20
(See Order Denying Def.’s Mot. to Dismiss, JTS v. Onofrietti, Case No. 18-C-011256 (March
21
19, 2019), Ex. 4 to Resp. to Mot. to Enjoin, ECF No. 353-6). In denying the motion, the court
22
found that JTS did not waive and did not release any claims against the Drivers in the Greene
23
Class Action. (Id. 2:21–23). Additionally, the court determined that JTS’s claims for
24
conversion, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of contract, and unjust enrichment were permissive
25
rather than compulsory counterclaims in the Greene Class Action. (Id. 3:21–4:7).
Page 2 of 10
1
In at least six of the State Actions, JTS successfully moved the Nevada state court for a
2
writ of attachment and writ of garnishment in aid of attachment. JTS expressly sought to attach
3
the class members’ portions of their yet-to-be-distributed settlement awards. For example, in
4
one of the cases, 2 JTS v. Gebrekiros, the court stated:
5
The Plaintiffs have alleged that there is now due and owing from
Defendant to Plaintiffs [JTS and Bentley Transportation Services,
LLC] the principle sum of at least $5,056.27. The Plaintiffs have
informed this Court that the Defendant’s portion of the settlement in
[the Greene Class Action] will be $518.20. Plaintiffs have also
informed this Court that Plaintiff believes that his money is
currently in the possession of James J. Jimmerson . . . .
6
7
8
9
10
(See Order 4:2–8, JTS v. Gebrekiros, Case No. 18-C-011252 (Apr. 2, 2019), Ex. A to Mot. to
11
Enjoin, ECF No. 351-1). The court required that JTS post an undertaking as security in the
12
amount of $518.20 and stated the persons upon whom writs of garnishment in aid of attachment
13
may be served are JTS, James J. Jimmerson, and Carol Jimmerson. (Id. 4:12–17). The court
14
described the property to be attached as “Solomon Gebrekiros’ portion of the settlement in [the
15
Greene Class Action] in the amount of $518.20.” (Id. 4:18–22). The court further ordered the
16
clerk of court to issue a prejudgment writ of attachment upon posting of JTS’s undertaking, and
17
that “within 3 days after the Clerk of Court issues a prejudgment writ of attachment, the
18
Sherriff issue a writ of garnishment in aid of attachment on James J. Jimmerson, Esq.” (Id. 5:1–
19
9).
Plaintiffs filed the instant Motion to Enjoin shortly thereafter, contending, inter alia, that
20
21
Defendants’ initiation of the State Actions is an attempt “to attach the settlement proceeds so
22
23
24
25
2
The other State Actions for which writs of attachment and garnishment were ordered have substantially similar
language. (See, e.g., Order, JTS v. Naimi, Case No. 18-C-011204 (Apr. 3, 2019), Ex. B to Mot. to Enjoin, ECF
No. 351-2); (Order, JTS v. Donev, Case No. 18-C-011253 (Apr. 3, 2019), ECF No. 351-3); (Order, JTS v.
Onofrietti, Case No. 18-C-011256 (Apr. 3, 2019), ECF No. 351-4); (Order, JTS v. Ghebretensai, Case No. 18-C011935 (Apr. 2, 2019), ECF No. 351-5); (Order, JTS v. Cialini, Case No. 18-C-026281 (Apr. 3, 2019), ECF No.
351-6); (Order, JTS v. Prchal, Case No. 18-C-023297 (Apr. 2, 2019), Ex. 2 to Resp. to Mot. to Enjoin, ECF No.
354-4).
Page 3 of 10
1
they can reduce their liability under the Court’s Judgment.” (Mot. to Enjoin 5:1–5, ECF No.
2
351). The State Actions, Plaintiffs continue, therefore constitute an impermissible interference
3
with this Court’s Settlement Order and an encroachment on its continued jurisdiction over the
4
Settlement Agreement. (Id. 12:19–15:11).
5
II.
6
LEGAL STANDARD
Under the All Writs Act, federal courts “may issue all writs necessary or appropriate in
7
aid of their respective jurisdictions and agreeable to the usages and principles of law.” See 28
8
U.S.C. § 1651(a). This authority is substantially limited by the Anti-Injunction Act, which
9
prevents federal courts from enjoining “proceedings in a State court except as expressly
10
authorized by Act of Congress, or where necessary in aid of its jurisdiction, or to protect or
11
effectuate its judgments.” See 28 U.S.C. § 2283. “Any doubts as to the propriety of a federal
12
injunction against state court proceedings should be resolved in favor of permitting the state
13
courts to proceed . . . .” Atl. Coast Line R. Co. v. Bhd. of Locomotive Engineers, 398 U.S. 281,
14
297 (1970). Thus, an injunction may issue only upon “‘a strong and unequivocal showing’ that
15
such relief is necessary.” Sandpiper Vill. Condo. Ass’n., Inc. v. Louisiana-Pac. Corp., 428 F.3d
16
831, 842 (9th Cir. 2005) (quoting Bechtel Petroleum, Inc. v. Webster, 796 F.2d 252, 253–54
17
(9th Cir. 1986)).
18
III.
DISCUSSION
19
Plaintiffs contend that the state court orders’ issuing of writs of attachments and
20
garnishment threaten this Court’s jurisdiction over the settlement because this Court retained
21
jurisdiction over settlement-based disputes. (Mot. to Enjoin 14:6–15:2, ECF No. 351).
22
Plaintiffs also assert that the State Actions interfere with the Settlement Order because the
23
garnishment writs will prevent Defendants from funding the settlement by April 21, 2019. (Id.
24
13:15–14:6).
25
Page 4 of 10
1
Defendants respond that Plaintiffs fail to demonstrate that “a writ of attachment or a writ
2
of garnishment issued by a Nevada State court would interfere with this Court’s jurisdiction,
3
would re-litigate the issues decided by this Court, or would somehow prevent this Court from
4
enforcing its judgments.” (Resp. to Mot. to Enjoin. 9:7–10, ECF No. 353). Defendants cite to
5
Nevada law providing that a defendant’s debts may be subject to attachment or garnishment
6
notwithstanding those debts being the subject of another pending action. (Id. 9:14–10:4).
7
Defendants also cite authority for the proposition that “[s]ettlement proceeds . . . may be
8
attached by the judgment of another court,” and that this Court must give full faith and credit to
9
state courts’ orders to that effect. (Id. 10:11–12:1).
10
A. Exceptions to the Anti-Injunction Act
11
Plaintiffs raise two exceptions to the Anti-Injunction Act in support of its Motion—the
12
“in aid of jurisdiction,” and the “re-litigation” exceptions. (Mot. to Enjoin 13:4–15:11). The in-
13
aid-of-jurisdiction exception applies only when the “federal court’s flexibility and authority to
14
decide [a] case” is “seriously impaired” by a parallel state court proceeding. Sandpiper Vill.,
15
428 F.3d at 846–47. The re-litigation exception allows federal courts to “protect the res
16
judicata effect of their judgments and prevent the harassment of . . . federal litigants through
17
repetitious state litigation.” Id. at 847.
18
“Both exceptions serve a similar purpose: ‘to prevent a state court from so interfering
19
with a federal court’s consideration or disposition of a case as to seriously impair the federal
20
court’s flexibility and authority to decide that case.’” Brother Records, Inc. v. Jardine, 432 F.3d
21
939, 944 (9th Cir. 2005) (quoting Atl. Coast Line, 398 U.S. at 295). Under these exceptions, a
22
federal court may enjoin state court proceedings where necessary to effectuate a settlement
23
agreement over which the federal court retained jurisdiction. See Flanagan v. Arnaiz, 143 F.3d
24
540, 545 (9th Cir. 1998).
25
///
Page 5 of 10
1
1. Re-litigation Exception
2
The re-litigation exception permits federal courts to issue injunctions when necessary to
3
“protect or effectuate its judgments.” 28 U.S.C. § 2283. “This exception is grounded in ‘the
4
well-recognized concepts of res judicata and collateral estoppel.’” Id. (quoting Chick Kam
5
Choo v. Exxon Corp., 486 U.S. 140, 147 (1988)). “Thus, the exception permits a district court
6
to enjoin state court litigation if that litigation is barred by the res judicata effect of the district
7
court’s earlier judgment.” Id. (citing Blalock Eddy Ranch v. MCI Telecomms. Corp., 982 F.2d
8
371, 375 (9th Cir.1992)). An “essential prerequisite . . . is that the claims or issues which the
9
federal injunction insulates from litigation in state proceedings actually have been decided by
10
the federal court.” Sandpiper Vill., 428 F.3d at 847 (quoting Chick Kam Choo, 486 U.S. at 147–
11
48).
12
Here, the re-litigation exception does not apply. This Court’s adjudication of this case
13
and ultimately, the Settlement Order, are without findings or conclusions of law as to the
14
allegations of “ride theft” being litigated in state court. Moreover, Defendants point out—and
15
Plaintiffs do not dispute—that under the Settlement Agreement, “Defendants did not relinquish
16
their rights to pursue their claims of theft against any of the Class Members.” (Resp. to Mot. to
17
Enjoin 17:27–18:6). The state court arrived at the same conclusion, finding JTS neither waived
18
nor released any claims against the Drivers in the Greene Class Action. (See Order Denying
19
Def.’s Mot. to Dismiss 2:21–23, JTS v. Onofrietti, Case No. 18-C-011256 (March 19, 2019),
20
Ex. 4 to Resp. to Mot. to Enjoin).
21
The state court also issued findings as to res judicata in some of the State Actions.
22
While federal courts often decide res judicata in the first instance, “the situation is drastically
23
changed when the state court has already ruled that the state action is not barred by the res
24
judicata effect of the federal judgment.” Jardine, 432 F.3d at 943 (citing Parsons Steel, Inc. v.
25
First Ala. Bank, 474 U.S. 518, 524 (1986)). “That state court ruling itself may be binding on
Page 6 of 10
1
the federal court under the Full Faith and Credit Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1738.” Id.; see Parsons Steel,
2
474 U.S. at 524.
3
In two of the State Actions, the court, upon motions to dismiss, addressed whether the
4
FLSA and Nevada wage-law claims in the Greene Class Action bar the ride-theft claims. The
5
court concluded that the evidence required to establish JTS’s claims in the State Actions is
6
substantially dissimilar to that needed to establish the FLSA and Nevada wage claims. (Id.
7
3:16–19). The court found “no logical relationship between [JTS’s] claims against the
8
Defendants in this matter” and those in the Greene Class Action. (Id. 3:21–25). Therefore, the
9
court held that the ride-theft claims “would not have qualified as compulsory counterclaims,
10
11
and would therefore have been permissive,” rendering them “not barred.” (Id. 4:1–7).
In short, the re-litigation exception is inapplicable because the State Actions involve
12
claims distinct from those in the Greene Class Action. The claims in the State Actions were
13
neither litigated in the Greene Class Action, subject to waiver and release, nor barred by res
14
judicata.
15
16
2. In-Aid-of-Jurisdiction Exception
The in-aid-of-jurisdiction exception authorizes injunctive relief “to prevent a state court
17
from so interfering with a federal court’s consideration or disposition of a case as to seriously
18
impair the federal court’s flexibility and authority to decide that case.” Sandpiper Vill., 428
19
F.3d at 843 (quoting Atl. Coast Line, 398 U.S. at 295). “This exception arose from the settled
20
rule that if an action is in rem, the court first obtaining jurisdiction over the res may proceed
21
without interference from actions in other courts involving the same res.” Id. (internal citation
22
and quotation marks omitted). Although the in-aid-of-jurisdiction exception applies to some in
23
personam actions, “it remains that an injunction is justified only where a parallel state action
24
‘threatens to render the exercise of the federal court’s jurisdiction nugatory.’” Id. at 843–44
25
(quoting Bennett v. Medtronic, Inc., 285 F.3d 801, 806 (9th Cir. 2002)).
Page 7 of 10
1
Plaintiffs have not satisfied the Court that the State Actions, particularly the issuance of
2
writs of attachment and garnishment, seriously impair this Court’s Settlement Order. Plaintiffs
3
assert that the State Actions cannot proceed alongside the Greene Class Action because the
4
same res is at issue in both tribunals—the Drivers’ shares of their respective portions of the
5
settlement fund. Plaintiffs rely on Flanagan, where the Ninth Circuit upheld a federal court’s
6
injunction targeting state court proceedings. Flanagan v. Arnaiz, 143 F.3d 540 (9th Cir. 1998).
7
In that case, the Flanagans “sued several of these federal defendants they had settled with in
8
state court, for breaching the settlement agreement.” Id. at 543. Because the federal court in
9
Flanagan retained jurisdiction over disputes arising from the settlement, the Flanagans’ state
10
suit for breach of settlement restricted the federal court’s exclusive jurisdiction over settlement,
11
rendering an injunction appropriate. Id. at 545–46.
12
Unlike Flanagan, the State Actions here are not for breach of settlement; rather JTS is
13
suing for claims tangential to those litigated in the Greene Class Action. Further, and also
14
unlike Flanagan, the issued orders in the State Actions do not presently conflict with any
15
outstanding order from this Court.
16
The Court notes that the relevant yet-to-be-satisfied Order at this stage is the Court’s
17
directive that “[p]ursuant to the Settlement Agreement, Defendants shall fund the settlement by
18
April 21, 2019.” (See Settlement Order 3:20–21, ECF No. 344). Plaintiffs have not met their
19
burden of satisfying the Court that the outstanding writs of attachment and garnishment
20
preclude Defendants, as a matter of law, from fully funding the settlement by the April 21,
21
2019 deadline. The Court recognizes that Defendants’ issuance of writs of garnishment may
22
dictate that certain funds remain on-hold pending the State Actions. Nevertheless, the Court
23
reiterates that the Order requiring Defendants to fully fund the settlement remains in effect. In
24
light of that Order and given the feasibility of Defendants’ compliance with it, the Court finds
25
Page 8 of 10
1
that the Plaintiffs have failed to meet their burden of demonstrating that the State Actions—at
2
this juncture—render this Court’s jurisdiction nugatory.
3
In summary, the Plaintiffs have failed to prove that an exception to the Anti-Injunction
4
Act applies here to permit the Court to enjoin the State Actions. The Court is unpersuaded that
5
the State Actions impermissibly conflict with this Court's judgments or seriously frustrate this
6
Court's standing orders. Rather, the Court finds insufficient evidence and legal authority
7
supporting Plaintiffs claim that the State Actions impede Defendants from fully funding the
8
settlement by the Court-ordered deadline. Because Plaintiffs have not convinced the Court of
9
the State Actions’ preclusive impact on Defendants’ compliance with the Settlement Order, the
10
Anti-Injunction Act bars the requested injunctive relief.
11
B. Defendants’ Obligation to Fund the Settlement
12
Lastly, Plaintiffs cite to evidence suggesting that Defendants may decline to fund the
13
settlement by the deadline set forth by the Court’s Settlement Order and the parties’ Settlement
14
Agreement. (See, e.g., Mar. 1, 2019 Email Correspondence, Ex. G to Mot. to Enjoin, ECF No.
15
351-7). In particular, the record contains an email between the parties in which Defendants
16
imply that their obligations as to funding the settlement do not include the garnished amount of
17
$22,996.23 at issue in the State Actions. (See Apr. 4, 2019 Email Correspondence, Ex. 10 to
18
Resp. to Mot. to Enjoin, ECF No. 353-12).
19
The Court takes this opportunity to reiterate that Defendants shall fund the entirety of
20
the settlement fund by April 21, 2019, inclusive of the $22,996.23 at issue in the State Actions.
21
Defendants represented at the Court’s hearing on Plaintiffs’ Motion that it may seek relief from
22
the Court’s Order or seek amendment thereof. The Court notes that the effect of the Settlement
23
Order was to adopt the conditions as agreed upon by the parties. Were the Court to alter an
24
express provision of the Settlement Agreement, it would constitute an improper encroachment
25
on the parties’ bargained-for-exchange. Should the parties stipulate to amending the Settlement
Page 9 of 10
1
Agreement, the Court may entertain amending the Settlement Order to comport with the
2
parties’ agreed-upon terms.
3
C. Defendants’ Motion for Partial Relief Under Rule 60(b)(5)
4
In Defendants’ Motion for Partial Relief Under Rule 60(b)(5), Defendants state that “if
5
the Court is sufficiently concerned that the writs interfere with the Court’s judgment or
6
jurisdiction, the Court should modify the judgment to allow for the attachment and garnishment
7
of the funds at issue in lieu of payment to the Claims Administrator.” (Defs.’ Mot. Partial
8
Relief 6:21–27, ECF No. 360). However, because the instant Order finds that the Plaintiffs
9
have failed to demonstrate that the State Actions do not preclude Defendants from funding the
10
settlement in compliance with the Settlement Order and denies Plaintiffs’ request for injunctive
11
relief, the Court need not consider Defendants’ alternative request for modification of the
12
judgment. Accordingly, Defendants’ Motion for Partial Relief Under Rule 60(b)(5), (ECF No.
13
360), is DENIED as moot.
14
IV.
15
16
17
18
19
CONCLUSION
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motion to Enjoin, (ECF No. 351), is
DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion for Partial Relief Under Rule
60(b)(5), (ECF No. 360), is DENIED as moot.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that pursuant to the Court’s Order incorporating the
20
terms of the parties’ Settlement Agreement, (ECF No. 344), Defendants shall fund the
21
settlement by April 21, 2019, pursuant to the foregoing.
22
20
DATED this ____ day of April, 2019.
23
24
25
_______________________________
Gloria M. Navarro, Chief Judge
United States District Judge
Page 10 of 10
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?