Jasper Crook v. Burns and Taylor, LLC

Opinion

JS-6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT ? CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11] JASPER CROOK, Case No. ED CV 19-1957-SP 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DISMISSING ACTION AS 13 V. MOOT IN LIGHT OF SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT 14) BURNS AND TAYLOR, LLC, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 | 17 On October 11, 2019, plaintiff Jasper Crook, proceeding pro se, filed a civil 18 action against defendants Burns and Taylor, LLC, Gary Burns, and Frank 19 | Muratalla alleging defendants violated the Fair Labor Standards Act by committing 20 || fraud, unfair business practices, a breach of implied covenant of good faith, 21 |] intentional infliction of emotional distress, and wrongful termination. On 22 || November 1, 2019, the parties reached a settlement agreement in which plaintiff 23 || agreed to release all claims against defendants and dismiss this action with 24 || prejudice. 25 On November 18, 2019, plaintiff filed a document titled Stipulation 26 || Dismissing Action pursuant to the settlement agreement reached by the parties, but 27 || it was signed only by plaintiff, and thus did not in fact constitute a stipulation of 28 || the parties. The court informed plaintiff he could simply file a notice of voluntary

1 | dismissal, but plaintiff did not do so. Instead, the parties filed a joint status report 2 || on January 29, 2020, stating plaintiff would like the court to hold the case open 3 || until all terms of the settlement have been satisfied, and defendants did not object 4 || to this. As such, the court allowed the case to remain open, but ordered the parties 5 || to file a further status report informing the court of whether they are still working 6 || to satisfy the terms of the settlement, how long they expect this might take, and any 7 || other matters about which they wish to update the court. 8 On June 25, 2020, defendants filed a further status report asking the court to 9 || dismiss the case as moot in light of the settlement agreement reached by the 10 || parties. See Defendants’ Further Status Report at 1, Declaration of David M. 11 | Saldana (“Saldana Decl.”) § 3, Ex. A. On June 26, 2020, plaintiff filed a further 12 || status report asking the court to hold the case open on the ground that defendants 13 || had not yet satisfied their obligations under the settlement agreement to pay for 14 || defendant Frank Muratalla’s attendance at a management training and provide 15 || plaintiff with labor contracts in the minimum sum of $20,000. See Plaintiffs 16 | Further Status Report at 1-2. But defendants counter that there is no reason to 17 || leave the case open, since the settlement agreement gives defendants two years to 18 satisfy its requirement of providing plaintiff with labor contracts, and there was no 19 } time limit set for defendant Frank Muratalla’s attendance at a management 20 || training. See Saldana Decl. 7 5, Ex. A at 2. 21 Under Sections 2 and 3 of the settlement agreement, plaintiff agreed to 22 || release all claims against defendant and tender a stipulation dismissing this action 23 || with prejudice once defendants paid him four cash payments in the amount of 24 || $3,125.00, which constitutes full compensation for all of plaintiffs claims, 25 || including claims for salary, back and front pay, benefits, emotional distress, and 26 |i costs. See id. § 8, Ex. A at 1-3. There is no dispute that defendants have satisfied 27 |i all of the terms of Section 2 under the settlement agreement. See id.; Plaintiffs 28 || Further Status Report at 1. Further, defendants state they intend to fully satisfy the

1 || other terms of the settlement agreement by its stated deadlines, including providing 2 || plaintiff with labor contracts in the minimum sum of $20,000 over a two-year 3 || period. See Saldana Decl. 4 5-6, Ex. D. As such, pursuant to Section 3 of the 4 || settlement agreement, plaintiff was required to provide a stipulation dismissing this 5 || action with prejudice. See id. § 8, Ex. A at 2-3. 6 Based on the record before the court — including the declaration statements 7 || and the settlement agreement — the court concludes there is no live “case or 8 || controversy” for the court to resolve in light of plaintiffs release of his claims 9 || alleged in this lawsuit. See Shaw v. Jar-Romana Plaza, LLC, 2015 WL 1275294, 10 || at *6 (C.D. Cal. March 16, 2015), aff'd, 673 Fed. Appx. 774 (9th Cir. 2017) 11 || C‘.W]here a settlement agreement has released defendant ‘from any liability for the 12 || claims in this action, no ‘case or controversy’ remains and this Court is without 13 || subject matter jurisdiction to reach the merits.’ Indeed, logic suggests that the 14 || removal of a plaintiff's standing to sue is the precise purpose of a settlement 15 | agreement.”) (internal citation omitted); see also Sanford v. MemberWorks, Inc., 16 625 F.3d 550, 556-57 (9th Cir. 2010) (dismissing as moot claim for attorneys’ fees 17 || and costs of one plaintiff who released all claims against defendant through a 18 | settlement). Accordingly, as a result of the settlement agreement, the court now 19 || lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the claims alleged in this action. 20 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that this action is dismissed as moot in light 21 || of the settlement agreement reached by the parties. 22 23 24 |! Dated: July 28, 2020 25 26 SHERT PYM 00 54 United States Magistrate Judge 28