Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-02878/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-02878-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 840
Nature of Suit: Trademark
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question: Trademark

---

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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

AYSE SEN,

Plaintiff,

v.

AMAZON.COM, INC.,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.12cv2878 AJB (BGS)

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO

ENFORCE THE SETTLEMENT 

[Doc. No. 35]

Before the Court is Amazon.com’s (hereinafter “Defendant” or “Amazon”) Motion

to Enforce the Settlement. (Doc. No. 35.) Plaintiff opposes on grounds that she did not

understand the terms she signed on to and the agreement lacks valid consideration.

Plaintiff’s Opposition was filed on October 21, 2013. (Doc. No. 37.) The Court held a

hearing on this matter on December 12, 2013, allowing the parties to present their

arguments and any supporting evidence. After considering the parties’ briefs filed in

support and opposition, as well as the arguments presented at the hearing, the Court

GRANTS the motion to enforce. 

//

//

1 12cv2878

Case 3:12-cv-02878-AJB-BGS Document 43 Filed 12/19/13 Page 1 of 10
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

I. BACKGROUND

A. Factual and Procedural Background

The instant case stems from an alleged infringement of Plaintiff’s trademark,

“Baiden.”1

 Plaintiff, appearing pro se, initiated this lawsuit against Defendant on

December 4, 2012 asserting claims for trademark infringement, unfair competition, and

false advertising. (Doc. No. 1.) Defendant allegedly used Plaintiff’s mark in online payper-click campaigns and promotion on various search engines without Plaintiff’s express

authorization. These campaigns diverted online traffic to a landing page on Amazon’s

website with competitor products. Plaintiff alleged that this practice cost online traffic

and sales. (Doc. No. 1, at 2). 

After two attempts to compromise at Early Neutral Evaluation Conferences

(“ENE”) held before Magistrate Judge Bernard G. Skomal, the parties reached a settlement on July 9, 2013 with the assistance of Judge Skomal. (Doc. No. 20.) The parties

signed and executed the Settlement Memorandum of Understanding (“MOU”) that same

day. (See Doc. No. 35, Ex. A, “MOU”.) As the MOU expressly contemplated, Defendant

prepared and sent Plaintiff a long form agreement memorializing the terms of the MOU -

on August 14, 2013. However, on August 17, 2013, Plaintiff sent an email to defense

counsel, Mr. Allan Anderson, attempting to add certain terms which Plaintiff contends

“takes into account what [was] discussed about at the recent settlement conference.” (Id.

at Ex. C.) Defendants, through their counsel Mr. Anderson, replied that the items were

“not agreed to at the settlement conference.” Defendant urged Plaintiff to sign the long

form agreement to “put this case to bed.” (Id. at Ex. D.) 

On September 9, 2013, Judge Skomal held a Settlement Disposition Conference.

Regrettably, the parties were unable to agree to the terms of the original settlement MOU.

(Doc. No. 29.) Defendant informed the Court of its wish to file a motion to enforce and

did so on October 9, 2013. Plaintiff objects on grounds that the MOU is vague, confusing, and thus unenforceable. (Doc. No. 37 at 2.) Moreover, Plaintiff alleges the MOU is

1

Used in connection with Plaintiff’s product, the Baiden Mitten. 

2 12cv2878

Case 3:12-cv-02878-AJB-BGS Document 43 Filed 12/19/13 Page 2 of 10
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

incomplete as it leaves out material terms agreed upon at the ENE. (Id. at 2-3.) The Court

entertained oral arguments and allowed the parties to present their contentions and any

supporting evidence. 

B. The Settlement MOU

The key provisions of the MOU are as follows:

1. Payment in the sum of NONE; 

2. A release of all claims, including C.C.P. §1542 waiver, and a dismissal

with prejudice of the above entitled action;

3. The Court to retain jurisdiction to enforce the settlement for a period of 1

year; . . . 

7. If in [the] future, plaintiff discovers any further issues related [to] the Baiden mitten with Amazon.com, you can work with Amazon.com directly

through copyright@amazon.com with a cc to ...;

8. In the event you terminate with Amazon.com, you will provide written

notice advising that no 3d parties are selling the product, that you have the valid mark and subject to good faith confirmation, Amazon.com will agree

not to use “baiden” in text of sponsored links, no “Baiden” key words w/in

20 days of notice; 

9. Amazon to prepare long form agreement subject to mutual consent, otherwise this agreement rules.2

The last line provides that the undersigned “acknowledge and agree that this

settlement was made before the Court and is binding and judicially enforceable.” Both

parties signed the MOU dated July 9, 2013. 

II. LEGAL STANDARDS

“It is well settled that a district court has the equitable power to enforce summarily

an agreement to settle a case pending before it. However, the district court may enforce

only complete settlement agreements.” Callie v. Near, 892 F.2d 888, 890 (9th Cir. 1987)

(emphasis and citations omitted). Thus, to be enforced, a settlement agreement must

2

Provisions seven through nine were handwritten, due to this fact, and the fact that the MOU was

scanned then printed, the Court had some initial difficulty discerning some of the words. The Court

identified those words with help from defense counsel Mr. Anderson. The Court finds counsel’s

clarification is an accurate representation of the handwritten terms. When the Court discussed those

handwritten provisions during the December 12, 2013 hearing, Plaintiff did not object to the Court’s

reading. Therefore, the Court is satisfied that this order accurately reflects the terms of the MOU. 

3 12cv2878

Case 3:12-cv-02878-AJB-BGS Document 43 Filed 12/19/13 Page 3 of 10
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

meet two requirements. First it must be a complete agreement. Maynard v. City of San

Jose, 37 F.3d 1396, 1401 (9th Cir. 1994). Second, both parties must have either agreed to

the terms of the settlement or authorized their respective counsel to settle the dispute. 

Harrop v. Western Airlines, Inc., 440 F.2d 1143, 1144-45 (9th Cir. 1977). 

“The construction and enforcement of settlement agreements are governed by

principles of local law which apply to interpretation of contracts generally.” United

Commercial Ins. Serv., v. Paymaster Corp., 962 F.2d 853, 856 (9th Cir. 1992). “Under

California law, the intent of the parties determines the meaning of the contract. The

relevant intent is ‘objective’ - that is, the intent manifested in the agreement and by

surrounding conduct - rather than the subjective beliefs of the parties.” Thus, the true

intent of the party is irrelevant if it is unexpressed. Id. Outward manifestation or

expression of assent is controlling. Binder v. Aetna Life Ins. Co., 75 Cal. App. 4th 832,

851 (Cal. Ct. App. 1999). If there is a manifest intention that a formal agreement is not to

be complete until reduced to a formal writing to be executed, there is no binding contract

until that is done. Rennick v. O.P.T.I.O.N. Care, Inc., 77 F.3d 309, 315 (9th Cir. 1996). 

“Whether a writing constitutes a final agreement or merely an agreement to make an

agreement depends primarily upon the intention of the parties. In the absence of ambiguity this must be determined by a construction of the instrument taken as a whole.” Id.

Where material facts concerning the existence of terms of an agreement to settle are in

dispute, the parties must be allowed an evidentiary hearing. See Russell v. Puget Sound

Tug & Barge Co., 737 F.2d 1510, 1511 (9th Cir. 1984). 

III. DISCUSSION

It is now necessary for the Court to step in and “put this matter to bed.” Throughout her Opposition as well as during the evidentiary hearing, Plaintiff indicates that her

subjective understanding of the MOU did not align with the actual terms. Moreover,

Plaintiff argues the MOU is incomplete. (Doc. No. 37 at 2.) Plaintiff makes two specific

objections to the MOU. First, she expected to have continued use of the Amazon

platform for her product. (Id. at 3.) Second, she expected to have the power to “enjoin”

4 12cv2878

Case 3:12-cv-02878-AJB-BGS Document 43 Filed 12/19/13 Page 4 of 10
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

Amazon from misusing the Baiden mark. (Id.) Finally, Plaintiff contends that the

proposed long form agreement lacks consideration. (Id. at 4.) However, given that this

motion is to enforce the MOU, the Court construes Plaintiff’s argument to mean the

MOU lacks valid consideration. Plaintiff’s objections to the MOU are unfounded as

explained below. 

The Court bears in mind the fact that Plaintiff appears pro se and has no special

training in the law. (Id. at 2.) Because of this fact, the Court gives her the benefit of the

doubt and will protect her where necessary. See Karim-Panahi v. Los Angeles Police

Dept., 839 F.2d 621, 623 (9th Cir. 1988). However, this does not mean the Court will

provide an escape route for buyer’s remorse where Plaintiff knowingly entered into a

complete and valid agreement.

A. The MOU is a Complete and Unambiguous Agreement Intentionally Entered Into

The parties reached an agreement, the terms of which are expressed in the MOU,

after several hours of negotiation assisted by a highly competent, experienced, and fairminded judicial officer. Thus, the Court is unpersuaded by Plaintiff’s contention that she

felt “strong-armed” into signing a agreement that she purportedly “had no understanding

of” and “relied on the ‘neutral evaluator’ and Amazon.com attorneys.” (Id. at 2.) Indeed,

after reviewing her Complaint and briefs, the Court found Plaintiff to be very articulate

and demonstrates an excellent understanding of not only trademark law but also contract

law.

Although the MOU states that a “long form agreement” is to be prepared, under

California law “[w]hen the parties intend that an agreement be binding, the fact that a

more formal agreement must be prepared and executed does not alter the validity of the

agreement. Blix St. Records, Inc. v. Cassidy, 191 Cal. App. 4th 39, 48 (Cal. Ct. App.

2010). It is particularly important to note that Provision 9 of the MOU states that

Amazon is to prepare a long form agreement, however if the parties cannot reach mutual

consent, “this agreement [the MOU] rules.” 

5 12cv2878

Case 3:12-cv-02878-AJB-BGS Document 43 Filed 12/19/13 Page 5 of 10
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

Plaintiff states that it was only until after the settlement conference and after

signing the MOU that she learned she had just agreed to drop her lawsuit. (Id.) However,

Provision 2 of the MOU specifically states the undersigned agrees to “[a] release of all

claims, including a C.C.P. § 1542 wavier, and a dismissal with prejudice of the above

entitled action.”3

 The last line of the MOU states “I acknowledge and agree that this

settlement was made before the Court and is binding and judicially enforceable.” (See

MOU.) 

The fundamental goal of contract interpretation is to give effect to the mutual

intention of the parties, which is determined by objective manifestations of the parties’

intent, including the words used in the agreement, as well as extrinsic evidence of such

objective matters as the surrounding circumstances under which the parties negotiated or

entered into the contract, the object, nature, and subject matter of the contract and the

subsequent conduct of the parties. People v. Shelton, 36 Cal. 4th 759, 767 (Cal. 2005). 

Here, the words of the MOU themselves are undeniable and dispositive. A reasonable

person would understand “a release of all claims . . . and a dismissal of the above entitled

action” to mean that the person is agreeing to just that, releasing their claims and

dismissing the action. The language itself is not ambiguous, nor is it vague. Moreover,

the settlement conference was conducted before Magistrate Judge Skomal who acted as

an neutral evaluator and provided assistance to both parties. Plaintiff fully participated in

the negotiation and Judge Skomal’s presence supports the view that the negotiations were

conducted in an arms-length transaction.4

 

Furthermore, the language of the last line is evidently clear and understandable. 

The parties “acknowledge and agree that this settlement was made before the Court and is

binding and judicially enforceable.” A reasonable person would understand this to mean

3

 The above entitled action is Sen v. Amazon, 12cv2878 (BGS). This appears immediately after

the caption “Settlement Memorandum of Understanding.” 

4

 Plaintiff would have the Court call into question Judge Skomal’s neutrality. (See Doc. No. 37 at

2.) However, any implication of such is completely unfounded and Plaintiff does not provide a shred of

evidence to suggest Judge Skomal was anything but evenhanded and helpful to both parties. 

6 12cv2878

Case 3:12-cv-02878-AJB-BGS Document 43 Filed 12/19/13 Page 6 of 10
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

that the agreement they sign is fully binding and may be enforced by the court. This

language is not open to objective dispute or an alternative interpretation. During the

evidentiary hearing, the Court asked Plaintiff whether she read through the MOU during

the settlement conference. Plaintiff indicated that she did indeed. 

While the Court is sympathetic to Plaintiff and the fact that she only consulted with

an attorney after the fact. The Court does not provide relief for a party’s cold feet. 

Based on the instrument, taken as a whole, the writing constitutes a final and complete

agreement.5

 By reading through the MOU and signing on the dotted line, Plaintiff

manifested an objective outward expression of assent to the terms of the MOU. Moreover, the Court must protect the objective expectations of the other party to the agreement. To all parties involved, including the Magistrate Judge, Plaintiff outwardly projected

the intent and willingness to be bound by the agreement.

B. The MOU Contains all of the Material Terms and Plaintiff’s Concerns

are Unfounded.

The instant motion arises from an attempt by Plaintiff to insert additional terms

into the proposed long form agreement. In particular was a “damage calculator” that sets

Plaintiff’s recoverable damages if her product is no longer for sale on Amazon.com and

Defendant continues the use of Baiden in the text of sponsored links. The damages

would equal 60% of Plaintiff’s total average of daily sales occurring during the three day

period immediately before the violation. According to Plaintiff, this was necessary to

ensure Amazon would not infringe again. Plaintiff also wanted to insert language that

Amazon would allow her the continued use of Amazon’s platform and not restrict or

suspend her in any way for any reason. Even if she violated Amazon’s policies that

typically warrant a ban, Amazon’s only recourse was to notify her of the violation and

allow for 30 days to correct. (See Doc No. 35, Ex. C.)

As expected, Defendant objected to these additional terms and contend that all the

material terms, including Plaintiff’s remedy against any alleged trademark infringement,

5

 Provision 9 expressly contemplates that in the event a long form agreement cannot be agreed

upon, the MOU controls. 

7 12cv2878

Case 3:12-cv-02878-AJB-BGS Document 43 Filed 12/19/13 Page 7 of 10
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

are contained within the MOU. (Doc. No. 35 at 4.) The Court agrees that Plaintiff

cannot seek to add additional terms into an already valid and complete agreement. If

Plaintiff wished to include such terms, they should have been discussed during negotiations, and if they were absolutely necessary to Plaintiff, she should not have signed on the

dotted line. The Court now turns to Plaintiff’s specific objections to the terms of the

MOU: (1) it fails to include language she be allowed continued use of the Amazon

platform and (2) it fails to “stop or enjoin Amazon.com or other Amazon customers from

misusing the Baiden mark.” (Doc. No. 37 at 2-3.) Plaintiff’s specific objections are

unfounded. 

A review of the MOU does not support any of Plaintiff’s concern. First, Plaintiff is

not prohibited from using the Amazon platform. Indeed, Provision 8 states “[i]n the

event that you (Plaintiff) terminate with Amazon.com . . . ” (See MOU.) This language

clearly indicates that Plaintiff is allowed to continue her use of the Amazon platform to

market and sell her product and she has the power to end that business relationship in the

future.6

 Second, Amazon has indeed agreed to stop using her mark and the MOU gave

Plaintiff the means to enforce. Provision 8 goes on to state that after Plaintiff terminates

with Amazon.com, she “will provide written notice advising that no 3d parties are selling

the product, that [she has] the valid mark and subject to good faith confirmation,

Amazon.com will agree not to use ‘baiden’ in text of sponsored links, no ‘baiden’ words

w/in 20 days of notice.” This is completely reasonable and addresses Plaintiff’s concern. 

It is obvious that if Plaintiff or any authorized third parties are selling the Baiden mitten

on the Amazon platform, Amazon necessarily needs to be able to use the mark in the text

of sponsored links and key word searches. How else will Plaintiff get traffic and sell her

product? Moreover, once Plaintiff terminates use of Amazon’s platform, and if no

authorized third party vendors are still selling the product, Amazon agrees to not use her

mark within twenty days of receiving notice. Plaintiff appeared to be concerned with

6

 To the extent that Plaintiff subjectively believed that she was entitled to indefinite and

unlimited use of Amazon’s platform no matter how many violations she incurred, this view is

unreasonable and unsupported by the plain language of the MOU. 

8 12cv2878

Case 3:12-cv-02878-AJB-BGS Document 43 Filed 12/19/13 Page 8 of 10
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

future infringements, but the MOU provides her with relief. Provision 3 states that the

Court will retain jurisdiction to enforce the settlement for one year. Thus, Plaintiff can

seek the Court’s authority to bind Defendant to their agreement to stop using the mark. 

In addition, if Amazon breaches the terms of the settlement, Plaintiff would have the

option of filing a breach of contract claim and seek damages therein. 

Although the MOU only provides for the Court’s jurisdiction to enforce for one

year, this does not mean that subsequent to the expiration of the enforcement period,

Plaintiff is left without legal recourse. Plaintiff has only agreed to drop the action Sen v.

Amazon, 12-CV-2878-AJB-BGS and resolve the issues presented therein. She has not

agreed to drop all legal claims that may arise from the party’s relationship or conduct

going forward. 

C. The MOU is Supported by Valid Consideration

As this motion is brought to enforce the MOU, the Court will construe Plaintiff’s

contention in regards to the lack of consideration to apply to the MOU and not the

proposed long form agreement. Plaintiff states that in exchange for her giving up her

lawsuit and any claim to damages, “Amazon would be required to do nothing at all.” 

Therefore, the agreement lacks “good consideration” and unenforceable. (Doc. No. 37 at

5.) 

Courts will generally not inquire into the adequacy or relative value of the consideration provided by each party. 6 Cal. Jur. 189, Willison on Contracts (Rev. Ed.), § 115;

see also Schumm by Whyner v. Berg, 37 Cal. 2d 174, 185 (Cal. 1951) (stating “the law

will not enter into an inquiry as to the adequacy of the consideration.”) “A valuable

consideration, however small or nominal, if given or stipulated for in good faith, is, in the

absence of fraud, sufficient to support an action on any ... contracts.” Lawrence v.

McCalmont, 43 U.S. 426, 452 (1844). However, where the disparity is so gross as to

raise a presumption of fraud, the Court may inquire as to show unconscionability. See

Herbert v. Lankershim, 9 Cal. 2d 409, 475 (Cal. 1937). Here, the parties did not indicate

9 12cv2878

Case 3:12-cv-02878-AJB-BGS Document 43 Filed 12/19/13 Page 9 of 10
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

any suspicion of fraud or wrongdoing. Moreover, the Court does not find such gross

disparity as to raise a presumption of fraud. 

The terms of the MOU show a bargained for exchange supported by valid consideration. Valuable consideration for a contract may consist of some right, interest, profit,

or benefit accruing to one party or some forbearance, detriment, loss, or responsibility

given, suffered, or undertaken by the other. See Peleg v. Neiman Marcus Group, 204

Cal. App. 4th 1425, 1450 (Cal. Ct. App. 2012). In the instant case, Plaintiff gave her up

claims in exchange for an undertaking by Defendant that it was not legally obligated to

do. Defendant agreed to provide Plaintiff an alternative method of resolving issues in

regards to her mark. (See MOU Provision 7.) According to defense counsel, this is

something not ordinarily provided for Amazon platform. Thus, the Court concludes that

valid consideration for the MOU exists to support a valid agreement. 

IV. CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s Motion to Enforce

the Settlement Agreement, as embodied by the Settlement MOU, and judgment for the

defendant on the terms set forth in the MOU is ordered. The Clerk of Court is directed to

enter judgment as provided herein and dismiss the case. As the parties have signed and

filed their consent to the Magistrate Judge’s jurisdiction (Doc. No. 42.), the Magistrate

Judge assigned has the authority to enforce the settlement as stipulated by the terms of the

MOU.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: December 19, 2013

Hon. Anthony J. Battaglia

U.S. District Judge

10 12cv2878

Case 3:12-cv-02878-AJB-BGS Document 43 Filed 12/19/13 Page 10 of 10