Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_17-cv-04294/USCOURTS-cand-3_17-cv-04294-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 370
Nature of Suit: Other Fraud
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Fraud

---

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

RACHELLE PEREZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

FCA US LLC,

Defendant.

Case No. 17-cv-04294-JCS 

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO 

ENFORCE SETTLEMENT AND 

VACATING NOVEMBER 2, 2018 

MOTION HEARING

Re: Dkt. No. 49

Plaintiff brings a Motion to Enforce Settlement (“Motion”) asking the Court to order that 

FCA US LLC (“FCA”) comply with the terms of the settlement agreement in this case, alleging 

that FCA and its counsel have been “delaying completion of the terms of the settlement.” In 

particular, Plaintiff asserts that FCA has prevented her from surrendering her vehicle and that its 

counsel failed to respond to a series of emails from Plaintiff’s counsel on this subject between 

August 21, 2018 and September 12, 2018. Plaintiff also asks the Court to award $1,200 in 

attorneys’ fees as a sanction under 28 U.S.C. §1927 for the time spent drafting the Motion. The 

Motion is DENIED. The Motion hearing set for November 2, 2018 is vacated pursuant to Civil 

Local Rule 7-(b).

In its Opposition brief, FCA represents that the delay in connection with surrender of the 

vehicle resulted from a discrepancy as to the condition of the vehicle, namely, that while 

Plaintiff’s counsel represented that the vehicle had only a small scratch, the company that 

contracts with FCA to process vehicle surrenders reported much more extensive damage. See 

Lidalen Decl., ¶ 3. FCA further represents that the emails from Plaintiff’s counsel that were not 

returned were sent only to Scott Shepardson, who left the Nixon Peabody firm effective August 

31, 2018, and that an email notification to that effect is sent in response to all incoming emails 

Case 3:17-cv-04294-JCS Document 55 Filed 10/22/18 Page 1 of 2
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

addressed to Mr. Shepardson. Id. ¶ 6. According to FCA, although Plaintiff’s counsel would have 

received that notification, they did not contact any of the other attorneys of record on the case, 

including Kristi Livedalen and Jennifer Kuenster. Id. ¶ 5. FCA represents that it has now 

instructed the vehicle surrender service to accept the vehicle as is and the “settlement is being 

processed,” rendering the Motion moot. Id. ¶ 7; Opposition at 3. 

Plaintiff did not file a reply brief and the deadline for doing so has now passed. Therefore, 

the Court concludes that Plaintiff does not dispute the factual representations made by FCA’s 

counsel in opposition to the Motion concerning the status of the surrender and more generally, the 

processing of the settlement. Based on those representations, the Court finds that the problems 

associated with surrender of the vehicle were not a result of any vexatious or unreasonable 

conduct on the part of FCA that requires Court intervention or that warrants an award of attorneys’ 

fees under 28 U.S.C. § 1927.1 Therefore, the Court denies the Motion.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 22, 2018

______________________________________

JOSEPH C. SPERO

Chief Magistrate Judge

 

1 Nor does the delay in responding to the emails from Plaintiff’s counsel warrant Court 

intervention. It appears that the delay was due, in part, to the fact that Plaintiff’s counsel sent the

emails to Mr. Shepardson at the Nixon Peabody firm even though he had moved to a different 

firm. While Plaintiff’s counsel should have investigated when they received email notifications 

stating that Mr. Shepardson was no longer employed by the Nixon Peabody firm (or contacted 

another attorney of record), the Court also notes that FCA did not file a notice in this case 

informing Plaintiff that Mr. Shepardson’s contact information and firm affiliation had changed. 

Indeed, the docket sheet in this case continues to list Mr. Shepardson’s Nixon Peabody contact 

information. In other words, both sides bear some responsibility for the delay that resulted from 

the unanswered emails. FCA’s share of the blame, however, is not sufficient to warrant the 

imposition of sanctions or require the Court to order performance of the settlement agreement.

Case 3:17-cv-04294-JCS Document 55 Filed 10/22/18 Page 2 of 2