Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_07-cv-02770/USCOURTS-cand-5_07-cv-02770-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 150
Nature of Suit: Overpayments &amp; Enforcement of Judgments
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Breach of Contract

---

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 1

 Apart from its contention that the application fails to comply with the California Code of

Civil Procedure, Pycon argues the proposed form of judgment does not match the document it is

alleged to have signed. That discrepancy arose from the omission of a page in Arrow’s original

filing, and appears to have been cured by its submission on reply.

*E-FILED 7/9/07*

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

ARROW ELECTRONICS, INC., 

Plaintiff,

 v.

PYCON, INC.

Defendants. /

NO. C 07-02770 RS

ORDER REQUESTING

FURTHER BRIEFING

Before the Court is the request of plaintiff Arrow, Inc. for entry of judgment “by confession”

on an expedited basis. Defendant Pycon, Inc. has filed written opposition to the request, arguing

primarily that the request does not comply with California Code of Civil Procedure sections 1132 (b)

and 1133. Most significantly, Pycon contends, Arrow has not provided a signed certificate from an

attorney independently representing Pycon establishing that the attorney examined the proposed

judgment and advised Pycon as to the advisability of utilizing the confession of judgment

procedure.1

 There is no dispute that Pycon was not in fact represented by independent counsel when

it executed the underlying settlement agreement and the confession and stipulation to entry of

judgment.

Arrow appears to be correct that the provisions of the California Code of Civil Procedure are

inapplicable here, and that as a matter of federal procedure judgment could be entered herein as if

this were any other stipulation for entry of judgment. See Retail Clerk’s Union Joint Person Trust v.

Case 5:07-cv-02770-RS Document 12 Filed 07/09/07 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

ORDER REQUESTING FURTHER BRIEFING 

C 07-02770 RS 

2

Freedom Food Center, Inc., 938 F.2d 136, 137 (9th Cir. 1991) (“the entry of a confessed judgment

is ‘a matter of procedure where the federal rules govern.’ [Citations].”); see also Bowles v. J.J.

Schmitt & Co., 170 F.2d 617, 621 (2d Cir.1948) (refusing to apply New York statutes governing

confessions of judgment to diversity action in federal court but noting, “confusion may be avoided

or lessened if the document is given some less technical or horrendous title, such as ‘Agreement for

Judgment,’ instead of ‘Confession.’”). Nor would there appear to be any basis to require an

evidentiary hearing; the cases cited by Pycon for that proposition involve situations where there is a

dispute as to the existence or terms of a settlement agreement.

 Nevertheless, it is not immediately clear that the Court may properly enter judgment against

a corporation based on a stipulation for entry of judgment that is not signed by an attorney

representing the corporation, which, in effect, is all that exists here. This is so not because of the

California Code of Civil Procedure, but as a result of the rule that corporations may not appear in

federal court except through counsel. The Retail Clerk’s decision makes clear that a judgment

entered against a corporation represented by a non-lawyer is not automatically void per se, but it

appears to imply that such a judgment may be voidable in some circumstances. The cases discussed

in Retail Clerk’s also do not appear to involve situations where the fact of the corporation’s nonrepresentation by licensed counsel was known or recognized prior to entry of judgment. Although

Pycon is represented by counsel in this proceeding now, that would not appear to cure the concern

that the stipulation for entry of judgment is not executed by Pycon through counsel.

Accordingly, the Court requests further briefing as to whether entry of judgment would be

appropriate and authorized under these circumstances. Arrow may file a brief, not to exceed 10

pages, within five court days of the date of this order. Pycon may file a response, not to exceed 10

pages, within five court days thereafter. The matter will then be deemed submitted.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 9, 2007 

RICHARD SEEBORG

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:07-cv-02770-RS Document 12 Filed 07/09/07 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

ORDER REQUESTING FURTHER BRIEFING 

C 07-02770 RS 

3

THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT NOTICE OF THIS ORDER HAS BEEN GIVEN TO:

Javed I. Ellahie javed@ellahie.net, ellahie@gmail.com

Seth D. Hilton sdhilton@stoel.com

Counsel are responsible for distributing copies of this document to co-counsel who have not

registered for e-filing under the Court's CM/ECF program. 

Dated: 7/9/07 Chambers of Judge Richard Seeborg

By: /s/ BAK 

Case 5:07-cv-02770-RS Document 12 Filed 07/09/07 Page 3 of 3