Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-05102/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-05102-11/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Legal Malpractice

---

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

XIONG MAN SITU, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

EUGENE WONG, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 13-cv-05102-JD 

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 

CORRECTION OF JUDGMENT

Re: Dkt. No. 77

Pending before the Court is plaintiffs’ motion “for an order amending the July 17 

judgment, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(a) and (b) to state that the Court will retain jurisdiction 

on the settlement agreement and its performance.” Dkt. No. 77 at 1. The Court denies the motion.

The Court finds no “clerical mistake or a mistake arising from oversight or omission” that 

needs correction pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(a). Plaintiffs rely heavily on the 

fact that “the settlement terms placed on [the] record contemplated that this Court would retain 

jurisdiction over the settlement.” Dkt. No. 80 at 2. But that is not what the record shows. At the 

mandatory settlement conference that produced the agreement (but not yet a written settlement 

agreement), counsel asked Magistrate Judge Nandor Vadas, “I’m not sure that you will be able to 

retain jurisdiction over any disputes that should arise, but some language to the effect that we can 

at least come here and attempt to get the result?” Magistrate Judge Vadas replied, “Normally 

that’s what I would do. I would retain jurisdiction as the settlement judge during the pendency of 

the resolution of the fine points, so to speak, once the documents are exchanged.” Dkt. No. 78-1 at 

9 (emphasis added). Consequently, even under the terms of plaintiffs’ own argument, the Court is 

not persuaded that the parties clearly placed on the record a mutual desire and understanding that 

the Court would retain jurisdiction over the performance (as opposed to the negotiation) of the 

settlement agreement. The fact that the Court did not retain such jurisdiction in its July 21, 2014 

Case 3:13-cv-05102-JD Document 86 Filed 04/08/15 Page 1 of 3
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

order of dismissal therefore cannot be characterized as a “clerical mistake or a mistake arising 

from oversight or omission.”

Nor does the Court find that relief is warranted under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 

60(b)(1). Plaintiffs argue that the Court issued a judgment “which, if read literally, could not be 

complied with” because it “required plaintiffs to certify compliance before any payments were 

due.” Dkt. No. 80 at 7. But the July 21 order provided that:

The parties hereto, by their counsel, having advised the court that 

they have agreed to a settlement of this cause, IT IS HEREBY 

ORDERED that this cause of action is dismissed without prejudice; 

provided, however, that if any party hereto shall certify to this court, 

within ninety (90) days, with proof of service thereof, that the 

agreed consideration for said settlement has not been delivered over, 

the foregoing order shall stand vacated and this cause shall forthwith 

be restored to the calendar and be set for trial. 

If no certification is filed, after passage of ninety (90) days, the 

dismissal shall be with prejudice.

Dkt. No. 58. The Court’s order nowhere “required plaintiffs to certify compliance before any 

payments were due.” Rather, as plaintiffs admit, despite their expectation that “the settlement 

agreement would be quickly signed based upon the fact that the settlement was placed on the 

record,” it “dragged on . . . for months, which caused this problem.” Dkt. No. 78 at 2. Moreover, 

plaintiffs’ counsel “did not read carefully the Court’s judgment” and plaintiffs failed to request the 

judgment be amended before the dismissal became with prejudice. Id. Plaintiffs instead filed 

their present request for the change to the judgment over six months after the Court entered it. The 

Court does not find “just terms” for relief under these circumstances. Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(1).

Perhaps most importantly, the Court is not persuaded that its present ruling will deprive 

plaintiffs of “the opportunity to present their case or a claim.” Dkt. No. 80 at 8. As the Supreme 

Court has observed, enforcement of a settlement agreement is “more than just a continuation or 

renewal of the dismissed suit.” Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co., 511 U.S. 375, 378 (1994). 

Rather, the facts underlying the alleged breach of settlement agreement and those underlying the 

merits of plaintiffs’ claims in the now-dismissed action “have nothing to do with each other,” and 

it would “neither be necessary nor even particularly efficient that they be adjudicated together” by 

the same court. Id. at 380. Plaintiffs may seek their desired relief in state court, with no loss of 

Case 3:13-cv-05102-JD Document 86 Filed 04/08/15 Page 2 of 3
3

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

efficiency. See id. at 382 (“[E]nforcement of the settlement agreement is for state courts, unless 

there is some independent basis for federal jurisdiction.”).

Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, and “[i]t is to be presumed that a cause lies 

outside this limited jurisdiction.” Id. at 377. Although it is true the Court could have chosen to 

retain jurisdiction over the performance of the settlement agreement at issue, that it did not was 

not the result of mistake, oversight or omission, and the Court does not see “just terms” to grant 

plaintiffs’ late request to make that change at this juncture. 

Plaintiffs’ motion is denied. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 8, 2015

________________________

JAMES DONATO

United States District Judge

Case 3:13-cv-05102-JD Document 86 Filed 04/08/15 Page 3 of 3