Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01941/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01941-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Charles Robinson, Inc.
Defendant
James Sanford
Plaintiff
West Sacramento 76 Gas
Defendant

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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAMES SANFORD, )

) 2:05-cv-1941-GEB-KJM

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) ORDER

)

CHARLES ROBINSON, INC., d/b/a )

WEST SACRAMENTO 76 GAS, ) 

)

Defendant. )

)

On May 22, 2006, Plaintiff filed a Notice (“Pl.’s Notice”)

stating he had accepted Defendant’s Offer of Judgment dated May 11,

2006, and requesting judgment be entered in accordance with that

offer. (Pl.’s Notice at 1.) According to that Notice, the parties

agree Defendant will provide various forms of “injunctive relief,” pay

compensatory damages in the amount of $4,001, and “pay attorney’s fees

and costs as ordered by the Court or by agreement of the parties.” 

(Id. at 1.) Plaintiff also filed a “Proposed Order” on May 22, 2006,

requesting that judgment be entered “in favor of Plaintiff and against

[D]efendant[] based on Plaintiff’s Acceptance of Defendant[‘s] Offer

of Judgment . . . .” (Pl.’s Proposed Order at 1.) However, for the

reasons that follow, judgment will not be entered on the injunctive

relief portion of the Offer of Judgment and Plaintiff’s request for

injunctive relief will be dismissed. 

Case 2:05-cv-01941-GEB -KJM Document 14 Filed 07/06/06 Page 1 of 4
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

The injunctive relief portion of the Offer of Judgment

reveals Defendant has agreed to certain modifications in its parking

lot, restrooms, and entrances, as well as to “train and direct

employees to make all services offered to the general public available

to mobility impaired persons.” (Pl.’s Notice Ex. A at 2.) By styling

these agreed-upon modifications as “injunctive relief,” the parties

essentially request that the Court oversee and continue to exercise

jurisdiction over their agreement. Cf. TNT Marketing, Inc. v.

Agresti, 796 F.2d 276 (9th Cir. 1986) (plaintiff sought and obtained

enforcement of an injunction through contempt proceedings because the

parties had previously stipulated to a judgment enjoining certain

conduct). However, “the mere fact that the parties agree that the

court should exercise continuing jurisdiction is not binding on the

court.” Arata v. Nu Skin Int’l Inc., 96 F.3d 1265, 1269 (9th Cir.

1996). The decision whether to grant injunctive relief and exercise

such jurisdiction “rests within the equitable discretion of the

district courts, and . . . such discretion must be exercised

consistent with traditional principles of equity . . . .” Ebay v.

Mercexchange, L.L.C., 126 S. Ct. 1837, 1841 (2006); Charles Alan

Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 3005 (2d

ed. 2006) (stating that notwithstanding an accepted Rule 68 offer of

judgment “[t]he decision whether to enter any injunction is ultimately

within the court’s discretion”). 

Here, several considerations dictate that judgment should

not be entered on the injunctive relief portion of the accepted Offer

of Judgment. First, the proposed injunction does not comply with the

requirements of Rule 65(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

because it lacks specificity. See William Keeton Enterprises, Inc. v.

Case 2:05-cv-01941-GEB -KJM Document 14 Filed 07/06/06 Page 2 of 4
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

A All American Strip-O-Rama, Inc., 74 F.3d 178, 182 (9th Cir. 1996)

(quoting Rule 65(d)’s requirement that “‘every order granting an

injunction shall be specific in terms . . . [and] shall describe in

reasonable detail . . . the act or acts sought to be restrained.’”). 

For example, the proposed injunction does not specify when the agreed

upon modifications are to be completed or what type of training and

direction Defendant has agreed to provide to its employees. (Pl.’s

Notice Ex. A at 2.) Furthermore, the proposed injunction requires a

modification Plaintiff did not seek in his Complaint and may not have

standing to obtain in a federal lawsuit. Cf. Peacock v. Thomas, 516

U.S. 349, 359 (1996) (cautioning district courts against exercising

jurisdiction over “a new action based on theories of relief that did

not exist, and could not have existed, at the time the court entered

judgment”). Specifically, Plaintiff, who is male, only requested in

his Complaint modifications to the men’s restroom, but the accepted

Offer of Judgment also requires modifications to the women’s restroom. 

(Compare Pl.’s Notice Ex. A. at 2, with Pl.’s Compl. Ex. A at 16.)

Nor have the parties shown that an injunction is needed to

enforce the injunctive relief provisions in the accepted Offer of

Judgment. “[A] federal judge . . . is not mechanically obligated to

grant an injunction for every violation of law.” Weinberger v.

Romero-Barcelo, 456 U.S. 305, 313 (1982)(citing Tennessee Valley Auth.

v. Hill, 437 U.S. 153, 193 (1978)). “The requirements for the

issuance of [an] injunction are the likelihood of substantial and

immediate irreparable injury and the inadequacy of remedies at law.” 

Easyriders Freedom F.I.G.H.T. v. Hannigan, 92 F.3d 1486, 1495 (9th

Cir. 1996) (citation and quotation marks omitted). Whereas here,

Defendant has agreed make the modifications, Plaintiff is unlikely to

Case 2:05-cv-01941-GEB -KJM Document 14 Filed 07/06/06 Page 3 of 4
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

4

suffer substantial and immediate irreparable injury. Furthermore,

since the accepted Offer of Judgment reflects settlement between the

parties, Plaintiff does not have an inadequate remedy at law should

Defendant fail to make the agreed-upon modifications. See Jessup v.

Luther, 277 F.3d 926, 929 (7th Cir. 2002) (observing that settlement

of a federal lawsuit over which continuing jurisdiction is not

exercised creates a contract that the parties can enforce through a

separate lawsuit) (citing Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co., 511 U.S.

375, 378-82 (1994)) (additional citations omitted). 

Therefore, since the parties have reached an agreement as to

the modifications to be performed, but have neither presented a

proposed injunction that satisfies the specificity requirement of Rule

65 nor shown an injunction is needed, judgment shall not be entered on

the injunction portion of the Offer of Judgment. Furthermore,

Plaintiff’s request for injunctive relief is dismissed since the

parties’ agreement embodied in the Offer of Judgment is tantamount to

a stipulated dismissal. Cf. Oswalt v. Scripto, Inc., 616 F.2d 191,

194 (5th Cir. 1980) (revealing that when a settlement is tantamount to

a stipulated dismissal, a dismissal order should issue). However, in

accordance with the remaining portions of the Offer of Judgment,

judgment shall be entered in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendant

“for compensatory damages in the sum of $4,001.00. Defendant agrees

to pay reasonable attorney’s fees and costs as ordered by the Court or

by agreement of the parties.” (Pl.’s Notice Ex. A. at 2.) 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 6, 2006

/s/ Garland E. Burrell, Jr.

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:05-cv-01941-GEB -KJM Document 14 Filed 07/06/06 Page 4 of 4