Ekuantia PTE, LTD v. Chang

• Court: District Court, N.D. California
• Decided: August 29, 2022
• Docket: 3:21-cv-09938
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 EKUANTIA PTE, LTD, 7 Case No. 21-cv-09938-JCS Plaintiff, 8 v. ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO SET 9 ASIDE DISMISSAL AND ENTER JACK CHANG, et al., STIPULATED JUDGMENT 10 Defendants. Re: Dkt. No. 19 11

12 13 I. INTRODUCTION 14 Presently before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Set Aside Dismissal and Enter 15 Stipulated Judgment (“Motion”). Defendants have not opposed the Motion and the deadline for 16 filing an opposition has now passed. The Court finds that this motion is suitable for determination 17 without oral argument and therefore vacates the motion hearing scheduled for September 16, 2022 18 pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b). For the reasons stated below, the Motion is GRANTED. 19 II. BACKGROUND 20 In this action, Plaintiff Ekuantia PTE, Ltd. (“Ekuantia”) asserted claims for breach of 21 contract and fraud against Defendants GIVE Corp and its president, Jack Chang, in connection 22 with two written agreements between Ekuantia and GIVE Corp relating to the provision of white 23 label services for Ekuantia. After both defendants failed to respond, the Clerk entered their 24 defaults. Dkt. Nos. 10, 14. However, the parties entered into a settlement agreement on May 16, 25 2022, and the Court granted their stipulation to set aside the defaults, dismiss the action without 26 prejudice, and retain jurisdiction to enforce the agreement for 180 days. Dkt. No. 18. In the 27 parties’ stipulation, they consented to the jurisdiction of the undersigned magistrate judge for all 1 event Defendants defaulted on their payment obligations under the Settlement Agreement. Dillon 2 Decl. ¶ 5 & Ex. C (Stipulation for Entry of Judgment). 3 Under the Settlement Agreement, Defendants were obligated to pay the full settlement 4 amount of $142,000 before August 1, 2022. Dillon Decl. Ex. A (Settlement Agreement), Section 5 III. According to Ekuantia’s counsel, no payment has been made. Id. ¶ 9. Section V of the 6 Settlement Agreement provides that in the event Defendants fail to pay and/or make incomplete 7 payments and fail to cure within 5 business days of Ekuantia’s notice to cure, a 5% late fee will 8 be applied to the Settlement Amount (i.e., $7,100) and Ekuantia will have the right to immediately 9 re-open the case, file the Stipulation for Entry of Judgment, and have judgment entered against 10 Defendants for the sum of $142,000, plus late fees, interest (at an annual rate of 12% simple 11 interest) and attorney’s fees, less any amounts paid by Defendants pursuant to the Settlement 12 Agreement. Dillon Decl., Ex. A (Settlement Agreement), Section V. 13 Ekuantia notified Chang of Defendants’ default on August 1, 2022 but Defendants have 14 not cured the default. Dillon Decl. ¶ 9 & Ex. D. Accordingly, Ekuantia asks the Court to enter the 15 Stipulated Judgment and award the settlement amount of $142,000, the late penalty of $7,100, 16 attorneys’ fees incurred in bringing the instant motion in the amount of $1,050, and interest at a 17 daily rate of $49.02/day starting on August 8, 2022 (five business days after the settlement amount 18 was due). 19 III. ANALYSIS 20 A. Legal Standard 21 Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6), the Court may relieve parties “from a 22 final judgment, order, or proceeding” for any “reason justifying relief from the operation of the 23 judgment.” “Repudiation of a settlement agreement that terminated litigation pending before a 24 court constitutes an extraordinary circumstance, and it justifies vacating the court’s prior dismissal 25 order.” Keeling v. Sheet Metal Workers Int'l Ass'n Local Union, 162, 937 F.2d 408, 410 (9th Cir. 26 1991). “Further, ‘in the usual litigation context . . . courts have inherent power summarily to 27 enforce a settlement agreement with respect to an action pending before it; the actual merits of the 1 WL 10638325, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 6, 2018), aff'd, 788 F. App’x 529 (9th Cir. 2019) (quoting 2 Dacanay v. Mendoza, 573 F.2d 1075, 1078 (9th Cir. 1978)). 3 B. Discussion 4 Ekuantia has demonstrated that it is entitled to relief under Rule 60(b), having provided 5 || evidence that Defendants have failed to abide by the terms of the Settlement Agreement and have 6 || not cured the default after being given notice pursuant to the terms of that agreement. Further, 7 except with respect to the application of the interest rate provision of the Settlement Agreement, 8 the Court finds that the amounts sought in the Motion are consistent with the Settlement 9 Agreement and that the amount requested in attorneys’ fees is reasonable. According to the Dillon 10 || Declaration, counsel — who is a managing partner of his firm with 26 years of experience — 11 charges $345/hour for his time and spent 2.5 hours on the motion; his assistant, who is a paralegal, 12 || spent 1.5 hours, billing at a rate of $125/hour. Based on the Court’s experience, these rates are 5 13 || reasonable, as is the time spent on the Motion. The Court reduces the daily interest rate to 14 $46.68/day, however, because the language of the Settlement Agreement appears to provide for 3 15 interest on the unpaid settlement amount only. Dillon Decl., Ex. A (Settlement Agreement), a 16 || Section V.C. (“Late payments will also incur 12% annual simple interest from the date due until 3 17 paid.”) It appears that Ekuantia has applied the 12% interest rate to the underlying settlement 18 amount of $142,000 plus the $7,100 late penalty. Therefore, the Court awards $980.28 in interest. 19 || IV. CONCLUSION 20 For the reasons stated above, the Motion is GRANTED, the dismissal without prejudice 21 shall be set aside, and judgment shall be entered against Defendants GIVE Corp and Jack Chang 22 || in the amount of $151,130.28. The Clerk is instructed to enter judgment against Defendants 23 consistent with this decision. 24 IT IS SO ORDERED. 25 Dated: August 29, 2022 26 i is C. SPERO 27 ief Magistrate Judge 28