Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01053/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01053-9/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 05:551 Administrative Procedure Act

---

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 This matter was determined to be suitable for decision without *

oral argument. L.R. 78-230(h).

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

READY TRANSPORT, INC., a Texas )

corporation, AVAILABLE SHIPPERS, )

INC., a Texas corporation, )

PREFERRED SHIPPERS, INC., a Nevada )

corporation, PROMPT SHIPPERS, INC.,) 

a Texas corporation and QUICK )

TRANSPORTATION, INC., a Nevada )

corporation, )

) 2:06-cv-1053-GEB

Plaintiffs, )

)

v. ) ORDER*

)

AAR MANUFACTURING, INC., a )

California corporation, AAR )

MOBILITY SYSTEMS, a corporation of )

unknown citizenship, )

 )

Defendants. )

)

On May 22, 2008, Defendants filed a motion in which they

seek to have docket entry number 92 stricken and removed from the

public record, and an award of attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in

bringing this motion. (Mot. at 4:4-11.) For the reasons that follow,

the motion is denied.

Case 2:06-cv-01053-GEB -GGH Document 97 Filed 05/30/08 Page 1 of 3
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

Docket entry number 92 is the parties’ settlement agreement,

which Plaintiffs have filed. Plaintiffs had previously requested to

file the parties’ settlement agreement under seal. That request was

denied in an order filed May 20, 2008, since Plaintiffs failed to

provide “sufficient justification that the settlement agreement should

be filed under seal.” (Order at 2:13-14, Dkt. No. 90.) The May 20,

2008 Order directed the Clerk of Court to return the settlement

agreement to Plaintiffs’ counsel. Subsequently, on May 23, 2008,

Plaintiffs filed the settlement agreement on the public docket stating

this filing was Plaintiffs’ “attempt to comply with the Court’s May

20, 2008 Order . . . .” (Notice of Filing Settlement Agreement, Dkt.

No. 92.) However, nothing in the Court’s May 20, 2008 Order required

Plaintiffs to file the settlement agreement. 

Defendants argue in their motion to strike docket entry 92:

Ignoring . . . Defendants’ oral and written

objections, and in direct violation of the express

terms of the parties’ confidential Settlement

Agreement, Plaintiffs improperly, and in bad

faith, filed the parties’ confidential Settlement

Agreement as a public document. Plaintiffs’

sanctionable conduct should not be condoned by

this Court, nor should the Court allow Plaintiffs

to use the civil litigation system to undermine

the strong public interest in favor of the

enforcement of contracts and the protection of

private agreements. 

(Mot. at 3:8-15.)

But, as previously stated in the May 20, 2008 Order, the

Court “was not told that the parties had a confidential settlement

agreement” that they expected the Court to enforce when the Court

agreed to dismiss this action with prejudice pursuant to the parties’

stipulation, and the Court is not bound by the parties’

confidentiality provision of their settlement agreement. (Order, May

Case 2:06-cv-01053-GEB -GGH Document 97 Filed 05/30/08 Page 2 of 3
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

3

20, 2008.) Nor was jurisdiction retained over the parties’ settlement

agreement when this action was dismissed. Jurisdiction was retained

“solely for the purpose of hearing and ruling upon Plaintiffs’

application re legal entitlement to attorney’s fees . . . .” (Order,

Feb. 26, 2008.) Since the parties’ dispute over docket entry 92

regards the confidentiality of the settlement agreement, it is outside

the scope of the retained jurisdiction. Therefore, Defendants’ motion

is denied. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 29, 2008

 

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:06-cv-01053-GEB -GGH Document 97 Filed 05/30/08 Page 3 of 3