4Wall Las Vegas, Inc. v. Triebwasser

Full title: 4WALL LAS VEGAS, INC., Plaintiff, v. MARK TRIEBWASSER, et al., Defendants.

Court: United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, E.D. California

Date published: Oct 7, 2013

2:12-cv-2746-KJN (E.D. Cal. Oct. 7, 2013)

Opinion

4WALL LAS VEGAS, INC., Plaintiff, v. MARK TRIEBWASSER, et al., Defendants. No. 2:12-cv-2746-KJN United States District Court, E.D. California. October 7, 2013

          ORDER

          KENDALL J. NEWMAN, Magistrate Judge.

         At a July 17, 2013 settlement conference, the parties to this now-closed action reached a verbal settlement agreement, which included the contemplated execution of a stipulated judgment to be filed by plaintiff only if defendants did not comply with their obligations pursuant to the settlement agreement. (ECF No. 70 at 29.) The parties ultimately executed a formal settlement agreement and filed a stipulation for dismissal of the action with prejudice, whereupon the case was dismissed with prejudice and closed. (ECF Nos. 67, 69.)

         Thereafter, on October 2, 2013, plaintiff filed a "Notice of Entry of Judgment or Order, " as well as a "Stipulated Judgment and Proposed Order." (ECF Nos. 71, 72.) These filings request the court to approve the parties' proposed stipulated judgment, and the proposed order section contains proposed language to set a briefing schedule as to further contempt proceedings.

         The court denies plaintiff's request to approve and enter the stipulated judgment without prejudice for the following two reasons. First, if plaintiff desires to have the court approve the stipulated judgment, it shall first submit a declaration under penalty of perjury from an appropriate person providing at least some factual showing as to how the settlement agreement was violated by defendants. Second, the court is not inclined to embark on extensive contempt proceedings and further briefing schedules in this already-closed case. The purpose of the stipulated judgment provision was to allow plaintiff, in the event of a breach of the settlement agreement, to have a judgment that plaintiff could then independently enforce through appropriate judgment enforcement mechanisms.

         Accordingly, the court denies plaintiff's request to approve and enter the stipulated judgment, but without prejudice to plaintiff re-submitting that request in accordance with this order.¹

1 For example, in additional to submitting an appropriate declaration regarding breach of the settlement agreement, plaintiff may wish to simply submit the proposed stipulated judgment between the parties (without the current additional "proposed order section"), followed by an order clause, such as "APPROVED AND SO ORDERED."

         IT IS SO ORDERED.