Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-01226/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-01226-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 840
Nature of Suit: Trademark
Cause of Action: 15:1051 Trademark Infringement

---

United States District Court

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

C-06-1226 NOTICE Page 1 of 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

OTTILIA HERTEL, KG,

Plaintiff,

v.

THOMAS R. ODERMATT, ET AL.,

Defendants.

________________________________/

No. C 06-1226 JL

NOTICE

Background

The Court on July 24, 2006 entered its order dismissing this case with prejudice

following a settlement agreement between the parties. The order provided that “. . .if any

party hereto shall certify to this court, within ninety days, with proof of service thereof, that

the agreed consideration for said settlement has not been delivered over, the foregoing

order shall stand vacated and this cause shall forthwith be restored to the calendar to be

set for trial.” (Docket # 29).

Stipulation to Amend Order of Dismissal

The Court on October 4 received the parties’ stipulation to amend order of dismissal.

Attorneys for Plaintiffs are Thomas R. Beer and Jennifer N. Lee, BARGER & WOLEN, LLP.

Attorney for Defendants is David A. Sauers, of THE SAPIRO LAW FIRM.

Case 3:06-cv-01226-JL Document 33 Filed 10/30/06 Page 1 of 3
United States District Court

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

C-06-1226 NOTICE Page 2 of 3

The parties’ stipulation to amend order of dismissal states:

“In accordance with the Court’s inherent right to enforce a settlement agreement

(see In re: City Equities Anaheim, Ltd., 22 F.3d 954, 957 (9th Cir. 1994), the Court

shall amend the Order of Dismissal to retain jurisdiction of this Case and over the

Plaintiffs and Defendants personally until March 15, 2009 to allow for the completion

of performance of the Settlement Agreement entered into by the parties according to

its terms and the filing of a Request for Dismissal.” 

(Docket # 30)

Analysis

The City Equities case was a proceeding in Bankruptcy Court and the court had

ongoing jurisdiction at the time of the settlement agreement and the motion to enforce it. In

fact, the court’s ongoing jurisdiction is expressly discussed in a portion of the decision:

“[i]n many federal courts, the practice has developed, in lieu of a full-dressed

proceeding to compel observance of a settlement agreement, of bringing the dispute

on less formally for handling by the trial judge.” Autera v. Robinson, 419 F.2d 1197,

1200 (D.C.Cir.1969). Thus, “[i]t is now well established that the trial court has power

to summarily enforce on motion a settlement agreement entered into by the litigants

while the litigation is pending before it.” Id. This circuit also recognizes a trial court's

inherent enforcement power. See, e.g., Dacanay v. Mendoza, 573 F.2d 1075, 1078

(9th Cir.1978).

In re City Equities Anaheim, Ltd. 22 F.3d 954, *957 (C.A.9 (Cal.),1994)(Emphasis added)

The court in the City Equities case had not dismissed that action, and the case was

still pending before it. The decision appears to rely on the fact that the litigation must still

be pending for the court to have jurisdiction to enforce a settlement agreement.

This Court has no objection to monitoring compliance with the parties’ settlement

agreement. However, once the dismissal was entered, an issue was created whether the

Court may take back jurisdiction over the case and restore it to the court calendar, in the

absence of the specific conditions described in the dismissal.

The parties are asking the Court to take back jurisdiction, even though the Court

dismissed the case with prejudice unless “the agreed consideration for such settlement has

not been delivered over. . .” The parties’ stipulation does not contend that any aspect of the

settlement has fallen through. Rather, they have entered into a settlement agreement the 

terms of which extend to March 15, 2009 and they ask this Court to retain jurisdiction to

enforce the agreement.

Case 3:06-cv-01226-JL Document 33 Filed 10/30/06 Page 2 of 3
United States District Court

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

C-06-1226 NOTICE Page 3 of 3

The Court has authority, under Rule 60, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, to amend

a judgment of dismissal, where a case is not on appeal, in the event of clerical error, under

Rule 60(a), or mistake, inadvertence, excusable neglect, newly discovered evidence, fraud,

etc., under Rule 60(b).

The Court questions its jurisdiction to grant relief from a judgment under Rule 60,

where there is no clerical error and no apparent mistake, inadvertence, excusable neglect,

newly discovered evidence or any other justification. The parties do not raise any such

grounds in their stipulation.

The parties have another option which is to leave the case as is, with a dismissal

with prejudice based on the settlement agreement, and then if anyone violates its terms,

file suit in state or federal court for breach of contract. 

The Court awaits the parties’ decision on how they wish to proceed.

DATED: October 30, 2006

__________________________________

 James Larson

 Chief Magistrate Judge

G:\JLALL\CHAMBERS\CASES\TERMED\06-1226\Notice-re-30.wpd

Case 3:06-cv-01226-JL Document 33 Filed 10/30/06 Page 3 of 3