Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_14-cv-04250/USCOURTS-cand-4_14-cv-04250-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Elizabeth Georgescu
Defendant
ReachMD, Inc.
Plaintiff
U.S. Healthconnect, Inc.
Plaintiff

Document Text:

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

U.S. HEALTHCONNECT, INC., et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

ELIZABETH GEORGESCU,

Defendant.

Case No. 14-cv-04250-HSG 

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

Plaintiffs US Healthconnect, Inc. and ReachMD, Inc. filed a complaint against Defendant 

Elizabeth Georgescu on September 19, 2014. Without prior notice to the Court of any settlement 

agreement, Plaintiffs filed a “Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreementˮ on June 2, 2015. These 

filings reveal numerous issues that need to be addressed. Plaintiffs are directed to file a single 

memorandum not exceeding twelve pages in length and allotting no more than four pages to any

of the following four issues by July 31, 2015.

First, Plaintiffs allege that this Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant Georgescu

based on the Defendant’s agreement to terms of use imposed by YouTube—a non-party. 

Complaint ¶ 10. Plaintiffs are directed to show cause as to why this case should not be dismissed 

for lack of personal jurisdiction. Plaintiffs should specifically address why the Court has personal 

jurisdiction over the Defendant and the scope of the Court’s authority to dismiss sua sponte for 

lack of personal jurisdiction.

Second, Plaintiffs allege that venue here is appropriate under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2), but 

allege no facts supporting that assertion. Complaint ¶¶ 10, 11-16. Plaintiffs are directed to show 

cause as to why this case should not be dismissed for improper venue. Plaintiffs should 

specifically address why venue is appropriate and the scope of the Court’s authority to dismiss sua 

Case 4:14-cv-04250-HSG Document 28 Filed 07/17/15 Page 1 of 2
2

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

sponte for improper venue.

Third, Plaintiffs move to enforce a settlement agreement. Dkt. No. 22. Plaintiffs are

directed to show cause as to why the Court currently has subject matter jurisdiction over this 

purported settlement agreement in light of Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S.

375 (1994) (“Enforcement of [a] settlement agreement is for state courts, unless there is some 

independent basis for federal jurisdiction.ˮ) and K.C. ex rel. Erica C. v. Torlakson, 762 F.3d 963 

(9th Cir. 2014) (“Federal courts have no inherent power to enforce settlement agreements entered 

into by parties litigating before them.”). Plaintiffs should not rely, as they did in their motion, on 

pre-Kokkonen authority, and should specifically identify any relevant Ninth Circuit authority. 

Fourth, in their motion to enforce the settlement agreement, Plaintiffs ask the Court to 

order non-parties to this action or settlement agreement, Google, Inc. and YouTube, to take actions 

in furtherance of the Parties’ settlement agreement. Plaintiffs are directed to cite Ninth Circuit 

authority establishing the Court’s authority to order a company to act based on a settlement 

agreement to which it is not a party.

Finally, the hearing scheduled for July 23, 2015 is hereby VACATED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 17, 2015

______________________________________

HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 4:14-cv-04250-HSG Document 28 Filed 07/17/15 Page 2 of 2