Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_11-cv-05638/USCOURTS-cand-3_11-cv-05638-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 790
Nature of Suit: Other Labor Litigation
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Other Contract

---

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

BORGMAN, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

INSPHERE INSURANCE SOLUTIONS,

INC., et al.,

Defendants. /

No. C 11-05638 CRB

ORDER CLARIFYING MAY 2012

ORDER, QUASHING WRIT OF

EXECUTION, AND DECLINING TO

ENJOIN STATE COURT ACTION

Plaintiffs move for clarification of this Court’s May 2012 Order regarding attorneys’

fees and move to quash a Writ of Execution that misread that Order. See Plaintiff Motion

(dkt. 44). Defendants’ file a related motion to enjoin further prosecution of a pending state

court action that involves the same underlying litigation. See Defendant Motion (dkt. 47). 

The Court finds this matter suitable for resolution without oral argument under Civil Local

Rule 7–1(b), GRANTS Plaintiffs’ motion, and DENIES Defendants’ motion. 

I. Plaintiffs’ Motion for Clarification and to Quash Writ of Execution

Plaintiffs argue that the Court gave them a choice at a March 2012 hearing on this

matter: either (1) continue litigating a motion for reconsideration of a dismissal for failure to

prosecute and pay Defendants’ attorneys’ fees, or (2) accept dismissal of the case and avoid

paying the fees. See Hearing Tr. 6:19–25 (“[A] 60(b) motion will be conditional . . . .

[U]ltimately, you’ll have the option. If you think it’s unreasonable, that’s up to you. You

Case 3:11-cv-05638-CRB Document 55 Filed 06/22/16 Page 1 of 3
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

don't have to pay it. I’m not ordering you to pay it.”). A May 2012 Order memorialized the

Court’s oral ruling at the March hearing. See May 2012 Order (dkt. 32). 

To the extent any ambiguity exists in the May 2012 Order regarding whether Plaintiffs

were required to pay Defendants’ attorneys’ fees after accepting dismissal of the case, the

Court GRANTS the motion to clarify under Rule 60—Plaintiffs are NOT required to pay

Defendants’ attorneys’ fees given that they have accepted dismissal of the case. See Fed. R.

Civ. P. 60. The Writ of Execution misread the Court’s May 2012 Order, and the Court

GRANTS under Rule 60 the motion to quash that writ as a clerical error. See Tattersalls,

Ltd. v. DeHaven, 745 F.3d 1294, 1297 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 60). 

II. Defendants’ Motion to Enjoin State Court Litigation

Defendants file a related motion to enjoin further prosecution of a pending state court

action involving the same subject matter as the case that this Court dismissed in 2012 for

failure to prosecute. See Defendants’ Motion. Defendants argued in state court that this

Court’s dismissal had res judicata effect in that forum—the state court disagreed. See State

Court Ruling (dkt. 52-3). Rather than appealing that decision through the state court system,

Defendants return to this Court and request an injunction against further prosecution of the

state court case under the relitigation exception to the Anti-Injunction Act. See Defendants’

Motion. The Court DENIES the motion for an injunction for the following reasons. 

“The Anti-Injunction Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2283, provides only three exceptions to the

general rule that courts of the United States shall not enjoin proceedings in state courts. A

federal court may enjoin state proceedings only as expressly authorized by Act of Congress,

or where necessary in aid of its jurisdiction, or to protect or effectuate its judgments.” See

Merle Norman Cosmetics, Inc. v. Victa, 936 F.2d 466, 468 (9th Cir. 1991). Assuming

without deciding that “the claims or issues” involved in the state court litigation “actually

have been decided by [this] federal court,” the decision to issue an injunction is still

“committed to the discretion of the district court.” See id. “In considering whether to

exercise their power to enjoin state court proceedings under the relitigation exception of the

Case 3:11-cv-05638-CRB Document 55 Filed 06/22/16 Page 2 of 3
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

3

Anti-Injunction Act, district courts must be guided by general principles of equity, comity,

and federalism.” Id. 

Applying these principles, the Court declines to enjoin the state court here “because

nothing prevented [Defendants] from raising [their] defenses of res judicata and collateral

estoppel in the California courts,” and state “courts are just as capable as federal courts in

applying applicable law. Doubts about the propriety of an injunction should be resolved in

favor of permitting the state courts to proceed in an orderly fashion to finally determine the

controversy.” Id. The Court thus DENIES Defendants’ motion for an injunction.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 22, 2016 

CHARLES R. BREYER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:11-cv-05638-CRB Document 55 Filed 06/22/16 Page 3 of 3