HOWARD JOHNSON INTERNATIONAL, INC. v. RAY & RAJ, INC. et al
Filing
12
OPINION. Signed by Judge William J. Martini on 11/15/12. (gh, )
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
Civ. No. 2:11-00730 (WJM)
HOWARD JOHNSON
INTERNATIONAL, INC.,
Plaintiff,
OPINION
v.
RAY & RAJ, INC. and RAJENDRA B.
PATEL,
Defendants.
WILLIAM J. MARTINI, U.S.D.J.:
Plaintiff Howard Johnson International, Inc. (“Howard Johnson”) settled the
above-captioned franchise dispute in 2011 and voluntarily dismissed its claims
with prejudice. The settlement fell through. Howard Johnson now asks the Court
to enter a consent judgment for the balance due under the settlement agreement.
The Supreme Court’s decision in Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of America,
511 U.S. 375 (1994), allows, but does not require, the Court to exercise its
diversity jurisdiction over this settlement dispute. For the foregoing reasons, the
Court chooses to exercise its jurisdiction, and it will GRANT Howard Johnson’s
motion for entry of the consent judgment.
Roughly five months into this litigation, the parties entered into a
confidential settlement agreement (the “Agreement”) providing for a series of
installment payments. Couch Certification ¶¶ 4-5, ECF No. 10-1. The Agreement,
which the Court has reviewed in camera, references a proposed consent judgment.
That proposed consent judgment was signed by Defendants on July 7, 2011. Id. at
Ex. A. The plan was that if Defendants missed an installment payment, Howard
Johnson would add its signature and fill in the amount it was owed: $276,845.41
less any monies already paid under the Agreement. With the proposed judgment in
hand, Howard Johnson voluntarily dismissed its claims with prejudice, and the
case was closed. ECF No. 7.
1
Months later, Defendants missed a payment, and Howard Johnson
threatened to seek entry of the consent judgment if the installment was not
forwarded in short order. Couch Certification, Ex. B. Apparently, the threats went
nowhere. Howard Johnson proceeded to sign the proposed judgment, fill in the
amount it was owed under the Agreement, and file the instant motion. When it
filled in the proposed judgment, Howard Johnson mistakenly wrote $74,345.41.
Id. ¶ 4 n.1. Since Defendants had only paid $43,511.28, Howard Johnson was
actually owed $233,334.13 ($276,845.41 less $43,511.28).
The Court begins its analysis with subject matter jurisdiction. Based on
Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Insurance Co. of America, 511 U.S. 375 (1994), the
Court concludes that it has jurisdiction. Kokkenen holds that “enforcement of [a]
settlement . . . whether through award of damages or decree of specific
performance, is more than just a continuation or renewal of the dismissed suit, and
hence requires its own basis for jurisdiction.” Id. at 378. In Kokkenen, a plaintiff
voluntarily dismissed its claims with prejudice after it entered into a settlement
agreement. Unfortunately, “settled” is a relative term. One party alleged breach of
the settlement agreement, and it asked the court to enforce the agreement; it did not
ask the court to revisit the claims that were dismissed with prejudice. Id. The
enforcement request might have appeared proper at the time, but it was not. As the
Supreme Court explained, the district court lacked jurisdiction over the settlement
dispute for three reasons. First, the district court lacked inherent authority to
exercise jurisdiction. Id. at 380-81. Second, the district court did not have
ancillary jurisdiction since (a) there was no “factual[] interdependen[ce]” between
the settlement dispute and the underlying dispute, and (b) the settlement agreement
was not incorporated into a court order. Id. at 380-82. Finally, the district court
lacked an independent basis for jurisdiction. Id. at 382.
Kokkenen is explicit: in the absence of ancillary jurisdiction, courts may not
enforce settlement agreements without an “independent basis for jurisdiction.” But
it is not explicit about whether lower courts possessing an independent basis for
jurisdiction can, or must, exercise that jurisdiction. Some courts refuse to exercise
their jurisdiction. They require plaintiffs to bring a new lawsuit for breach of the
settlement agreement. See, e.g., Cross Media Mktg. Corp. v. Budget Mktg., Inc.,
319 F. Supp. 2d 482, 482-83 (S.D.N.Y. 2004). Others take the opposite approach.
They consider the settlement dispute in the same case as the underlying dispute.
See, e.g., Brown v. M/V “Global Link”, No. 1-8298, 2003 WL 22015439, at **1-2
(S.D.N.Y. Aug. 26, 2003). The Third Circuit has not ruled on the question.
This Court agrees with the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh
Circuit: “Kokkonen is about adjudicatory competence, not the number of filing fees
a plaintiff must pay. As long as [an independent basis for jurisdiction] supplies
authority to decide, the court may act without a fresh complaint.” Blue Cross &
2
Blue Shield Ass’n v. Am. Express Co., 467 F.3d 634, 638 (7th Cir. 2006). Where
jurisdiction lies, and where it would be efficient to do so, courts should exercise
their jurisdiction and adjudicate a settlement dispute without requiring the plaintiff
to file a “fresh complaint.”
Here, the settlement dispute falls under the Court’s diversity jurisdiction
because the parties are citizens of different states, Compl. ¶¶ 1-3, ECF No. 1, and
the amount in controversy ($233,334.13) exceeds $75,000. See 28 U.S.C. §
1332(a). Basically, the Court only has to sign a proposed order to provide the
requested relief. It would be inefficient to make Howard Johnson file a new
complaint under a new docket number when this Court can resolve the dispute with
little more than the stroke of a pen. The Court will sign the proposed judgment.
Because Howard Johnson’s certification—which Defendants have chosen not to
challenge—provides a “clear, precise, and convincing” explanation for why the
$74,351.41 figure does not comport with the parties’ intent, the Court will also
correct the scrivener’s error and enter judgment for $276,845.41. See Int’l Union
v. Murata Erie North Am., Inc., 980 F.2d 889, 900 (3d Cir. 1992) (“Under the
doctrine of the scrivener’s error, the mistake of a scrivener in drafting a document
may be reformed based upon parol evidence, provided the evidence is ‘clear,
precise, convincing and of the most satisfactory character’ that a mistake has
occurred and that the mistake does not reflect the intent of the parties.”) (internal
citation omitted).
Accordingly, the Court will exercise its jurisdiction, reform the proposed
consent judgment to reflect an award of $233,334.13, and GRANT Howard
Johnson’s unopposed motion. An appropriate order follows.
/s/ William J. Martini
WILLIAM J. MARTINI, U.S.D.J.
Date: November 15, 2012
3
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?