Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-00096/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-00096-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 410
Nature of Suit: Antitrust
Cause of Action: 15:0001 Antitrust Litigation (Monopolizing Trade)

---

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

1 1 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

FILED 

SEP 18 2018 

CLERK US DIST H/Cf COURT SOUTHER~OISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

BY Cle\ DEPUTY 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

'" 

\ 

SAN DIEGO ASSOCIATION OF 

REALTORS, INC., 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

SANDICOR, INC., et al., 

Defendants. 

Case No.: 3:16-cv-00096-MMA-KSC 

ORDER: 

(1) DENYING DEFENDANTS' 

MOTION TO ENFORCE 

SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT; AND 

(2) DENYING AS MOOT 

DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO FILE 

TARDY REPLY BRIEF 

[Doc. Nos. 118, 125] 

21 Presently before the. Court is defendants', North San Diego Association of Realtors 

22 and Pacific Southwest Association of Realtors, Ex Parte Motion to Enforce a Settlement 

23 Agreement [Doc. No. 118], and a related Motion seeking leave to file a slightly tardy Reply 

24 Brief. Both Motions are opposed by plaintiff, San Diego Association of Realtors. [Doc. 

25 Nos. 123, 128]. For the reasons stated in greater detail below, the Motion to Enforce the 

26 Settlement Agreement is DENIED and the Motion to File the Reply Brief is DENIED AS 

27 MOOT. 

28 I I I 

3: I 6-cv-00096-MMA-KSC 

Case 3:16-cv-00096-MMA-KSC Document 133 Filed 09/18/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 4
1 BACKGROUND 

2 This case is currently stayed. [Doc. No. 116]. The District Court granted the parties' 

3 Joint Motion, finding persuasive their assertion that "the stay is necessary because the 

4 settlement agreement has a transition period and the case cannot be dismissed until the 

5 transition period has ended." [Id.]. The parties signed and executed a Settlement 

6 Agreement on April 20, 2018, roughly one month before seeking a stay from the District 

7 Court. [Doc. No. 118-1]. 

8 Defendants filed this Motion ex parte, on August 31, 2018, because of an important 

9 deadline looming on September 19, 2018 in the same settlement agreement at issue. [Doc. 

10 No. 118]. The Court set an abbreviated briefing schedule [Doc. No. 121], and a motion 

11 hearing was held before Judge Crawford on September 14, 2018. Plaintiff filed its 

12 Opposition on September 10, 2018 [Doc. No. 123], and defendants filed a Reply brief on 

13 11 September 12, 2018 [Doc. No. 126]. Plaintiff opposes the filing of the Reply because it 

14 11 was not filed before the deadline provided by the Court, and allegedly introduces new 

15 11 evidence that was available to defendants and should have been submitted in the original 

16 11 Motion. [Doc. No. 128]. The hearing was attended by counsel for all parties and the Court 

17 took the matter under advisement. [Doc. No. 132]. 

18 DISCUSSION 

19 Defendants allege seven breaches of the Settlement Agreement and/or Transition 

20 Agreement signed by all parties on April 20, 2018. [Doc. No. 118-1]. They argue 

21 "injunctive relief would be an appropriate remedy for defaults under the Settlement 

22 Agreement" and that "the Court should ... enjoin SDAR from any further violation of the 

23 Settlement Agreement and Related Agreements." [Id. at p. 21]. Plaintiff disagrees that the 

24 alleged conduct meets the stringent requirements for injunctive relief and further argues 

25 defendants cannot show they suffered "any harm or injury" from the alleged breaches. 

26 [Doc. No. 123, at p. 20]. 

27 This Court does not have jurisdiction to enforce the parties' Settlement Agreement. 

28 No party questioned this Court's jurisdiction in the briefing, or at the September 14, 2018 

2 

3: J 6-cv-00096-MMA-KSC 

Case 3:16-cv-00096-MMA-KSC Document 133 Filed 09/18/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 4
1 II hearing. Yet "subject-matter jurisdiction, because it involves a court's power to hear a 

2 11 case, can never be forfeited or waived." United States v. Colton, 535 U.S. 625, 630 (2002). 

3 11 Moreover, courts have an "independent obligation to determine whether subject-matter 

4 jurisdiction exists, even in the absence of a challenge from any party." 

5 Ruhrgas AG v. Marathon Oil Co., 526 U.S. 574, 583 (1999); see also Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 

6 12(h)(3). 

7 II Generally, "enforcement of [a] settlement agreement is for state courts, unless there 

8 11 is some independent basis for jurisdiction." Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 

9 II U.S. 375, 382 (1994). That basis exists when parties are obliged "to comply with terms of 

10 [a] settlement agreement [that] had been made part of [an] order of dismissal" pursuant to 

11 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41. Id. at 381. The Supreme Court affirmed its ruling 

12 when it later wrote that "federal jurisdiction to enforce a private contractual settlement will 

13 11 often be lacking unless the terms of the agreement are incorporated into the order of 

14 II dismissal." Buckhannon Bd. And Care Home, Inc. v. West Va. Dept. of Health and Human 

15 II Res. 's, 532 U.S. 598, 604 at n.7 (2001). Dismissal where the Court "retains jurisdiction" 

16 11 to enforce the settlement agreement subjects and exposes any potential breach to 

17 11 supplemental jurisdiction. Id. Namely, a court's power "to manage its proceedings, 

18 II vindicate its authority, and effectuate its decrees." Id. at 380. It is not enough that the 

19 11 dismissal "served as part of the consideration for the settlement agreement." Hages tad v. 

20 II Tragesser, 49 F.3d 1430, 1433 (9th Cir. 1995) (internal citations omitted). A district court 

21 11 must explicitly incorporate the terms of the settlement agreement and the parties' obligation 

22 to abide by it into the order of dismissal. See Ortolf v. Silver Bar Mines, Inc., 111 F .3d 85, 

23 88 ( 1997) ("The [order of dismissal does] not commit the court to enforcing the settlement 

24 agreement, [and] expressly provide[ s] that the settlement agreement is 'not incorporated 

25 herein.' [The Kokkonen exception does not apply because] the court did not commit its 

26 authority."). 

27 11 The Ninth Circuit held that a dismissal by a district court - a dismissal clearly 

28 11 motivated by a settlement agreement - that permitted a plaintiff "to reinstitute" its lawsuit 

3 

3: I 6-cv-00096-MMA-KSC 

Case 3:16-cv-00096-MMA-KSC Document 133 Filed 09/18/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 4
1 11 if the "settlement agreements were not performed" did not confer jurisdiction to enforce 

2 the agreement. Ortlof at 88. The boundaries of subject matter jurisdiction could not be 

3 stretched so far. 

4 11 The circumstances of the instant dispute well-exceeds the facts before the Ortlof 

5 Court. Here, the case was stayed to give the parties time to effectuate a complex settlement 

6 agreement. [Doc. No.116]. There is no independent basis for jurisdiction over the instant 

7 dispute. And there is no basis for this Court to vindicate its authority, or effectuate its 

8 decree, where it has neither retained jurisdiction in a dismissal, nor incorporated the terms 

9 of the settlement agreement in the dismissal order. 

10 Consequently, this Court is without jurisdiction to enforce the Settlement Agreement 

11 and IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendants' Motion is DENIED. 

12 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendant's Motion to File a Tardy Reply Brief 

13 is DENIED AS MOOT. 

14 IT IS SO ORDERED. 

15 11 Dated: September /!i.:2018 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

Hon. 

United States Magistrate Judge 

4 

3: I 6-cv-00096-MMA-KSC 

Case 3:16-cv-00096-MMA-KSC Document 133 Filed 09/18/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 4