Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_03-cv-04035/USCOURTS-cand-3_03-cv-04035-8/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 470
Nature of Suit: Civil (Rico)
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

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

U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOSE ROE, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

THOMAS F. WHITE, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

No. C 03-04035 CRB

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S

SECOND MOTION TO VACATE

Now pending before the Court is defendant White’s second motion to vacate the

Court’s approval of the Settlement Agreement. After carefully considering the papers filed

by the parties, and having had the benefit of oral argument, defendant White’s motion is

DENIED. As the Court considered White’s motion on the merits, his belated motion for

leave to file a motion for reconsideration is denied as moot. 

White contends that plaintiffs have violated the confidentiality and non-disparagement

clauses of the Agreement and, for this reason, the Court should vacate the dismissal of the

action and reinstate the case for trial. As support for his motion he cites Keeling v. Sheet

Metal Workers Int’l, 937 F.2d 408 (9th Cir. 1991). In Keeling, the union counterclaimed

against an employer for breach of contract. The union and the employer then entered into a

settlement agreement which required the employer to, among other things, pay the union

$100,000.00. In accordance with the settlement agreement, the court dismissed the union’s

claims. 

Case 3:03-cv-04035-CRB Document 286 Filed 10/11/05 Page 1 of 3
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

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

2

The employer, however, repudiated the agreement and refused to pay. The union (the

aggrieved party) then asked the court to vacate the dismissal and restore the case to the civil

active list. The court held that the employer’s actions “completely frustrated the purpose of

the settlement agreement,” and that this frustration constituted an exceptional circumstance

under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6) to vacate the dismissal of the union’s claims. 

The court later issued judgment in favor of the union. The employer appealed, claiming that

the district court should not have vacated the dismissal.

The Ninth Circuit affirmed. It held that “[i]n the usual course upon repudiation of a

settlement agreement, the frustrated party may sue anew for breach of the agreement and may

not, as here, reopen the underlying litigation after dismissal.” Id. at 410. However, it held

that in “extraordinary circumstances” it may set aside the dismissal and reopen the case, and

that the employer’s “complete frustration” of the settlement agreement was such an

extraordinary circumstance, or, at least, it was not an abuse of discretion to so find. Id. at

410-11.

Keeler does not help White. First, in Keeler the plaintiff wanted to set aside the

dismissal so it could pursue its claims. Keeler does not support the proposition that upon the

request of the defendant –and over the plaintiff’s objection–a court can set aside dismissal of

the plaintiff’s claims and reinstate the plaintiff’s case.

Second, in Keeler, the court did not invalidate or vacate the settlement, the relief that

White seeks here.

Third, White has not demonstrated extraordinary circumstances. The San Francisco

Chronicle article reveals that White’s lawyer disclosed the amount of the settlement–the

amount is arguably the most confidential of all the Agreement’s terms. Also, the nondisparagement clause applies to both parties. In the Chronicle article White’s lawyers are

arguably disparaging the plaintiffs.

//

//

//

Case 3:03-cv-04035-CRB Document 286 Filed 10/11/05 Page 2 of 3
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

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

G:\CRBALL\2003\4035\orderrevacate2.wpd 3

Accordingly, White’s second motion to vacate the Court’s approval of the Settlement

Agreement is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 11, 2005 

 

CHARLES R. BREYER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:03-cv-04035-CRB Document 286 Filed 10/11/05 Page 3 of 3