Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_15-cv-01516/USCOURTS-cand-5_15-cv-01516-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 840
Nature of Suit: Trademark
Cause of Action: 15:1125 Trademark Infringement (Lanham Act)

---

Case No.: 15-cv-01516 NC

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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Siliconindia, Inc.,

Plaintiff,

v.

CIO STORY LLC,

Defendant.

Case No. 15-cv-01516 NC 

ORDER FOR ADDITIONAL 

INFORMATION RE: MOTION TO 

ENFORCE SETTLEMENT

AGREEMENT

Re: Dkt. No. 35

On June 17, 2015, defendant CIO Story LLC moved to enforce a settlement 

agreement that it alleges was signed by both parties and resolved the disputes in the 

present action, Case No. 15-cv-01516 NC. Plaintiff Siliconindia, Inc. opposes the motion. 

Dkt. No. 48. Siliconindia argues that no settlement occurred because (1) Siliconindia was 

not a party to the agreement and never engaged in any negotiations or settlement 

discussions; (2) the individual who signed the settlement agreement was not authorized to 

act on behalf of Siliconindia; and (3) the individual with authority to settle the case on 

behalf of Siliconindia was not involved in settlement negotiations and did not sign a 

settlement agreement. Id. 

The parties have provided the Court with competing declarations, which present 

issues of fact for the Court to resolve. In these situations, “the district court may enforce 

only complete settlement agreements. Where material facts concerning the existence or 

terms of an agreement to settle are in dispute, the parties must be allowed an evidentiary 

Case 5:15-cv-01516-NC Document 54 Filed 07/09/15 Page 1 of 2
Case No.: 15-cv-01516 NC 2

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

Northern District of California

hearing.” Callie v. Near, 829 F.2d 888, 890 (9th Cir. 1987) (internal citations omitted). In 

its reply brief, defendant recognizes the need for additional discovery and an evidentiary

hearing to resolve the issues of fact. Dkt. No. 51 at 6. Defendant alternatively proffers 

that the parties may be able to reach a further settlement through mediation or a settlement 

conference. Id.

Thus, the Court VACATES the July 29, 2015, hearing date for the motion to 

enforce the settlement agreement. The Court ORDERS that the parties meet and confer 

about alternative dispute resolution, and a schedule for limited discovery and a hearing 

date. Defendant must submit a status update to the Court by July 17, 2015, to inform the 

Court whether:

(1) the parties agree to a method of alternative dispute resolution and request a 

referral, if necessary; or

(2) defendant will pursue an evidentiary hearing on the motion to enforce the 

settlement. In this case, the parties must propose a schedule for limited 

discovery and an evidentiary hearing date. 

 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 9, 2015 _____________________________________

NATHANAEL M. COUSINS

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:15-cv-01516-NC Document 54 Filed 07/09/15 Page 2 of 2