Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_13-cv-01805/USCOURTS-cand-5_13-cv-01805-20/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 480
Nature of Suit: Consumer Credit
Cause of Action: 15:1681 Fair Credit Reporting Act

---

1

Case No. 13-cv-01805-PSG

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS

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

ALAN BRINKER,

Plaintiff,

v.

JP MORGAN CHASE N.A., et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 13-cv-01805-PSG

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 

DISMISS

(Re: Docket No. 157)

In November 2014, Plaintiff Alan Brinker and Defendants JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. 

and California Reconveyance Company reached a settlement.1 In April of this year, the court 

issued an order enforcing that settlement.2 And yet—six months after the court’s order, and nearly 

a year after the parties settled—this case remains on the docket. Now before the court is a motion 

by Defendants to dismiss the case pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).3 Defendants argue that 

Brinker has failed to comply with the court’s order enforcing the settlement. Brinker opposes, 

claiming that Defendants are the ones who have not held up their end of the bargain.4 For the 

reasons set forth below, the court GRANTS Defendants’ motion.

Defendants have now offered a settlement contract that comports with the term sheet that 

Brinker agreed to in 2014, but Brinker nevertheless refuses to sign. Brinker objects to Chase’s 

 

1

See Docket No. 116.

2

See Docket No. 148.

3

See Docket No. 157.

4

See Docket No. 163.

Case 5:13-cv-01805-PSG Document 170 Filed 10/28/15 Page 1 of 3
2

Case No. 13-cv-01805-PSG

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS

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

refusal to repair his credit until he submits proof acceptable to Chase, but the term sheet contained 

exactly the same language.5 He argues that Chase should first provide a detailed accounting, but 

the court has already ordered that this is not necessary.6 He claims that the settlement agreement 

should not release his claims against any Defendant other than Chase, but his own notice of 

settlement included exactly that release.7 Brinker raises several complaints about other conditions 

of the settlement agreement, but none of these renders the settlement agreement materially 

different from the term sheet that Brinker already has signed. The court finds that Brinker’s 

failure to sign the settlement agreement is unjustified—and, therefore, so is his failure to obey the 

court’s order.

In Ferdik v. Bonzelet, the Ninth Circuit listed the factors that a court should consider in 

deciding whether to dismiss a case for failure to comply with a court order.

8

 They include “(1) the 

public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to manage its docket; 

(3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on 

their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic alternatives.”9 These factors strongly favor 

dismissal. The case has remained pending for almost a year after the parties settled it. Defendants 

have incurred, and continue to incur, substantial costs in trying to enforce the settlement. And the 

court has pursued less drastic alternatives, including ordering Brinker to sign the settlement, to no 

avail. At this point, the court’s—and Defendants’—only remaining remedy for Brinker’s 

intransigence is dismissing the case. The case is DISMISSED with prejudice.

 

5

See Docket No. 130-1, Ex. A at 1 (“Upon submission of proof acceptable to Chase, Chase will 

submit updated information to credit reporting agencies.”).

6

See Docket No. 148 at 10-11.

7

See Docket No. 116 at 1 (“Plaintiff Alan Brinker and Defendants JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. 

and California Reconveyance Company have reached a settlement as to the above-captioned 

matter which will resolve all causes of action against all remaining defendants.”).

8

963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992).

9

Id. (quoting Thompson v. Housing Auth., 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986)).

Case 5:13-cv-01805-PSG Document 170 Filed 10/28/15 Page 2 of 3
3

Case No. 13-cv-01805-PSG

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS

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

SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 28, 2015

_________________________________

PAUL S. GREWAL

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:13-cv-01805-PSG Document 170 Filed 10/28/15 Page 3 of 3