Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_03-cv-04035/USCOURTS-cand-3_03-cv-04035-20/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 I, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

 THOMAS F. WHITE, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

No. C 03-04035 CRB

ORDER

Now pending before the Court is plaintiffs’ motion for attorneys’ fees incurred in

enforcing its settlement with defendant Thomas White. After carefully considering the

papers filed by the parties, the Court concludes that oral argument is unnecessary, see Local

Rule 7-1(b), and DENIES plaintiffs’ motion.

Plaintiffs are not entitled to attorneys’ fees under 18 U.S.C. section 2255. Plaintiffs

settled their claims under that statute, and the settlement expressly provides that each party

shall bear its own costs and fees. Plaintiffs’ reliance on Maher v. Gagne, 488 U.S. 122, 129

(1980) and Texas State Teachers Ass’n v. Garland Independent School Dist., 489 U.S. 782,

792 (1989) is specious. The settlement in neither case included a section explicitly providing

that the parties shall bear their own costs and attorneys’ fees. 

Plaintiffs did prevail on their summary judgment claim that the settlement agreement,

that is, the contract between the parties, is enforceable. Unlike nearly every settlement 

Case 3:03-cv-04035-CRB Document 414 Filed 02/13/06 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

G:\CRBALL\2003\4035\orderdenyingfees.wpd 2

agreement this Court has ever seen, however, the settlement agreement did not include a

section providing that the prevailing party is entitled to fees and costs arising from any

dispute under the agreement. Plaintiffs do not cite any law that remotely suggests that when

a party successfully enforces a settlement agreement that does not include an attorneys’ fee

provision, that party is entitled to attorneys’ fees pursuant to the substantive law of the settled

case. Nor do they cite any case that suggests that a party who successfully enforces a

settlement agreement is entitled to attorneys’ fees incurred in enforcing the agreement when

the agreement itself does not have an attorneys’ fees provision. To award plaintiffs fees here

would require the Court to rewrite the parties’ agreement. This the Court will not do.

The Court also declines to sanction defendant White for his alleged “bad faith”

conduct. While the Court found that White’s arguments were motivated by his change of

heart, the Court does not believe that his arguments were so frivolous as to warrant sanctions. 

This is especially so given that White was able to attack the enforceability of the settlement

because of plaintiffs’ counsels’ omissions. For example, because plaintiffs’ counsel failed to

move for appointment of the guardian ad litem prior to the guardian’s execution of the

agreement on behalf of the three minor plaintiffs, and indeed, even before this Court initially

approved the settlement, White was able to challenge the agreement on that ground. 

Similarly, because plaintiffs’ counsel negotiated a global settlement that included two

plaintiffs with whom counsel had not communicated in nearly a year, counsel had to seek a

stipulation to modify the settlement when they could not locate the “missing plaintiffs.” 

This stipulation, and plaintiffs’ counsel’s failure to secure the signature of counsel for all

defendants, led to further litigation.

In sum, while the Court was not persuaded by White’s attempts to get out of his

agreement, the Court does not find that his conduct warrants sanctions under the Court’s

inherent authority. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 13, 2006 

CHARLES R. BREYER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:03-cv-04035-CRB Document 414 Filed 02/13/06 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\orderdenyingfees.wpd 3

Case 3:03-cv-04035-CRB Document 414 Filed 02/13/06 Page 3 of 3