Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-03808/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-03808-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 720
Nature of Suit: Labor Management Relations Act
Cause of Action: 29:160(1) National Labor Relations Act

---

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOSEPH P. NORELLI,

 Plaintiff,

 v.

SERVICE EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL

UNION,

Defendant. /

No. C07-03808 MJJ

ORDER DISMISSING PETITION WITH

PREJUDICE

Before the Court is the Motion To Dismiss Petition For Injunction (Docket No. 20) brought

by Petitioner Joseph P. Norelli, Regional Director of Region 20 of the National Labor Relations

Board, for and on behalf of the National Labor Relations Board.

In its opening papers, Petitioner requested that the Court dismiss the pending matter without

prejudice, on the grounds that the petition is now moot in light of a bilateral settlement agreement.

In opposition, Respondent contended that, because the Petition sought only preliminary

injunctive relief, the Court’s denial of the preliminary injunction from the bench during the August

2, 2007 hearing in this matter constitutes a “judgment” concluding the case, and that a further

dismissal of the matter is therefore not needed. In the alternative, Respondent requested that the

action be dismissed with prejudice. In the second alternative, Respondent requested that if the

action is dismissed without prejudice, that the Court award attorney’s fees to Respondent. 

In reply, Petitioner has now indicated that he “has no objection to the proceeding being

Case 3:07-cv-03808-MJJ Document 26 Filed 09/19/07 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

dismissed with prejudice, as the underlying unfair labor practice charge . . . has been settled, and

Respondent has been complying with the terms of the settlement.” (Docket No. 25, at 2:6-7.) 

Petitioner also argues that there is no basis for Respondent’s request for attorney’s fees.

The Court disagrees with Respondent’s contention that the Court’s August 2, 2007 bench

ruling denying a preliminary injunction, memorialized the following day in civil pretrial minutes

(Docket No. 18) constitutes a final Rule 54 “judgment.” As Respondent is aware, the Court directed

Respondent at that hearing to submit proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law, which have

not yet been adopted by this Court.

However, on reply, Petitioner now concedes Respondent’s argument-in-the-alternative that

dismissal with prejudice is appropriate. Petitioner represents that he has no further interest in

litigating this matter. Based on this concession, the Court hereby VACATES the October 2, 2007

hearing in this matter, and DISMISSES the Petition WITH PREJUDICE. The Clerk is

DIRECTED to enter judgment and close the file.

Because Respondent sought attorney’s fees only in the event that the Petition was dismissed

without prejudice, no fees award is appropriate.

Dated: 9/19/07 

MARTIN J. JENKINS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:07-cv-03808-MJJ Document 26 Filed 09/19/07 Page 2 of 2