Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_19-cv-00207/USCOURTS-cand-5_19-cv-00207-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 446
Nature of Suit: Americans with Disabilities Act - Other
Cause of Action: 42:12101 Americans w/ Disabilities Act (ADA)

---

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

SAN JOSE DIVISION

SCOTT JOHNSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

L. WANG FAMILY PARTNERS, LP, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 19-cv-00207-VKD 

ORDER DENYING WITHOUT 

PREJUDICE REQUEST FOR 

CONSENT DECREE

Re: Dkt. No. 51

On November 13, 2019, the parties filed a proposed consent decree resolving plaintiff 

Scott Johnson’s claims with respect to injunctive relief. Dkt. No. 51. The Court has reviewed the 

proposed consent decree and its attached documents. Paragraph 8 of the proposed consent decree 

states that “Defendants agree to maintain all of the remedial work set forth [in the attached Exhibit 

A] in its current condition.” Id. at 3 (emphasis added). Paragraph 12 then contemplates the Court 

retaining jurisdiction to enforce the terms of the consent decree “for twenty-four (24) months after 

the date of this Consent Decree, or until the relief contemplated by this Order is completed, 

whichever occurs later.” Id. at 4 (emphasis added). Read in conjunction, paragraphs 8 and 12 

provide for the Court’s retention of jurisdiction indefinitely. 

The Court declines to retain jurisdiction in perpetuity to enforce a consent decree. Arata v. 

Nu Skin Int’l, Inc., 96 F.3d 1265, 1268–69 (9th Cir. 1995) (observing that a court’s exercise of 

continuing jurisdiction to enforce a settlement agreement is entirely discretionary); Collins v. 

Thompson, 8 F.3d 657, 659 (9th Cir. 1993) (“A federal court may refuse to exercise continuing 

jurisdiction even though the parties have agreed to it.”). For this reason, the Court denies without 

prejudice the parties’ request for an order entering the proposed consent decree. The parties may 

resubmit a revised consent decree with a definite temporal limitation on the Court’s continuing 

Case 5:19-cv-00207-VKD Document 52 Filed 11/14/19 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

jurisdiction (for example, “not to exceed 24 months”) for the Court’s consideration.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 14, 2019

VIRGINIA K. DEMARCHI

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:19-cv-00207-VKD Document 52 Filed 11/14/19 Page 2 of 2