Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-00432/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-00432-33/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 840
Nature of Suit: Trademark
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question: Trademark

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

 As the parties expressly provided for the District Court's continuing jurisdiction in their

Agreement, the Court has jurisdiction over the parties' motions. Kokkonen v. Gurdian Life Ins. Co. of

Am., 511 U.S. 375, 380-81 (1994) (stating that a court has ancillary jurisdiction to enforce a settlement

agreement when the parties agree to continuing or retention jurisdiction). 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

THE HERMETIC ORDER OF THE GOLDEN

DAWN, INC..,

Plaintiff(s),

 vs.

DAVID J. GRIFFIN,

Defendant(s). /

No. C 05-0432 JSW (MEJ)

REPORT & RECOMMENDATION

RE: PARTIES' CROSS-MOTIONS TO

ENFORCE SETTLEMENT AND

DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR

SANCTIONS

On January 17, 2007, the undersigned magistrate judge conducted a settlement conference

and, as a result of successful negotiations, the parties entered into a written settlement agreement

(the "Agreement"). (Doc. ##161, 170, Ex. A.) However, both parties now contend that the other

party has violated the terms of their Agreement. Plaintiff filed its Motion to Enforce on February

22, 2008. (Doc. #170.) On April 14, 2008 Defendant filed his counter-motion to enforce or set

aside the Agreement. (Doc. #183).1

In keeping with the spirit of the parties' Agreement, the undersigned requested that the

parties appear for a further settlement conference before hearing any motions. The further

settlement conference took place on April 14, 2008, but the parties were unable to resolve their

differences. (Doc. #182.) The Court then scheduled both motions for a hearing. On April 20, 2008,

Defendant also filed a motion for sanctions against Plaintiff based on the April 14 settlement

negotiations. (Doc. #186.)

On June 5, 2008, the Court held a hearing on the matters. Based on the materials submitted

Case 3:05-cv-00432-JSW Document 213 Filed 06/05/08 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 2

by the parties and the oral arguments on June 5, it is clear that the Agreement must be set aside. 

Although the parties entered into a written settlement agreement, they are now unable to agree on

the intent and purpose of that agreement. Further, at the June 5 hearing, the parties raised issues

which are not addressed in the Agreement, such as the scope of each party's trademark in relation to

the internet, as well as Defendant's use of the triple seal design. Although the undersigned attempted

to resolve these issues at the June 5 hearing, the parties' adverse positions make settlement unlikely. 

Accordingly, the undersigned RECOMMENDS that the District Court deny the parties' crossmotions to enforce the Agreement, and that it set aside the Agreement and place this matter back on

calendar for disposition. 

As to Defendant's motion for sanctions, the Court finds that Plaintiff's conduct at the April 14

settlement conference does not rise to the level of sanctionable conduct. If anything, the Court finds

that neither party came prepared to fully negotiate regarding the terms of the existing Agreement. 

Accordingly, the undersigned RECOMMENDS that the District Court deny Defendant's motion for

sanctions.

IT IS SO RECOMMENDED.

Dated: June 5, 2008 

MARIA-ELENA JAMES

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:05-cv-00432-JSW Document 213 Filed 06/05/08 Page 2 of 2