Johnson v. Burton

N.D. California

Johnson v. Burton

DecidedNovember 8, 2022

Docket3:21-cv-00082

StatusUnknown

This text of Johnson v. Burton (Johnson v. Burton) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, N.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Johnson v. Burton, (N.D. Cal. 2022).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 SCOTT JOHNSON, Case No. 21-cv-00082-SI

8 Plaintiff, JUDGMENT 9 v. Re: Dkt. No. 17 10 GARY C. BURTON, et al., 11 Defendants.

12 13 Before the Court is plaintiff’s motion for entry of judgment pursuant to the parties’ February 14 26, 2021 settlement agreement. Dkt. No. 17. Plaintiff seeks $1,000 that defendants have failed to 15 pay as well as $1,500 as “liquidated damages to file a motion to reopen the case.” Dkt. No. 17-2 at 16 3. 17 Courts distinguish between liquidated damages, which are generally enforceable, and 18 penalties, which are not. In re Late Fee and Over-Limit Fee Litigation, 741 F.3d 1022, 1026 (9th 19 Cir. 2014). A liquidated damages provision is enforceable “if the damages flowing from the breach 20 are likely to be difficult to ascertain or prove at the time of the agreement, and the liquidated sum 21 represents a good faith effort by the parties to appraise the benefits of the bargain.” Id. And 22 liquidated damages “are customarily unenforceable as penalties when they are in excess of actual 23 damage caused by a contractual breach.” Id. Under California law, a liquidated damages clause 24 will generally be considered unreasonable and unenforceable “if it bears no reasonable relationship 25 to the range of actual damages that the parties could have anticipated would flow from a breach.” 26 Ridgley v. Topa Thrift & Loan Ass'n, 17 Cal. 4th 970, 977, 953 P.2d 484, 488 (1998). Here, the 27 liquidated damages are intended to cover the cost “to file a motion to reopen the case.” Dkt. No. 1 this case; instead, plaintiff has filed a brief motion for entry of default. The Court therefore finds 2 || that the $1,500 liquidated damages provision is unenforceable. 3 Good cause shown, and pursuant to the agreement of the parties, judgment is entered in favor 4 of Plaintiff and against Defendant Diamond Laundry and Cleaners, Inc., a California Corporation, 5 in the amount of $1,000. 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. 7 8 Dated: November 8, 2022 9 SUSAN ILLSTON 10 United States District Judge ll a 12

13 14

15 16 € = 17 6 Zz 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 SCOTT JOHNSON, Case No. 21-cv-00082-SI

8 Plaintiff, JUDGMENT 9 v. Re: Dkt. No. 17 10 GARY C. BURTON, et al., 11 Defendants.

12 13 Before the Court is plaintiff’s motion for entry of judgment pursuant to the parties’ February 14 26, 2021 settlement agreement. Dkt. No. 17. Plaintiff seeks $1,000 that defendants have failed to 15 pay as well as $1,500 as “liquidated damages to file a motion to reopen the case.” Dkt. No. 17-2 at 16 3. 17 Courts distinguish between liquidated damages, which are generally enforceable, and 18 penalties, which are not. In re Late Fee and Over-Limit Fee Litigation, 741 F.3d 1022, 1026 (9th 19 Cir. 2014). A liquidated damages provision is enforceable “if the damages flowing from the breach 20 are likely to be difficult to ascertain or prove at the time of the agreement, and the liquidated sum 21 represents a good faith effort by the parties to appraise the benefits of the bargain.” Id. And 22 liquidated damages “are customarily unenforceable as penalties when they are in excess of actual 23 damage caused by a contractual breach.” Id. Under California law, a liquidated damages clause 24 will generally be considered unreasonable and unenforceable “if it bears no reasonable relationship 25 to the range of actual damages that the parties could have anticipated would flow from a breach.” 26 Ridgley v. Topa Thrift & Loan Ass'n, 17 Cal. 4th 970, 977, 953 P.2d 484, 488 (1998). Here, the 27 liquidated damages are intended to cover the cost “to file a motion to reopen the case.” Dkt. No. 1 this case; instead, plaintiff has filed a brief motion for entry of default. The Court therefore finds 2 || that the $1,500 liquidated damages provision is unenforceable. 3 Good cause shown, and pursuant to the agreement of the parties, judgment is entered in favor 4 of Plaintiff and against Defendant Diamond Laundry and Cleaners, Inc., a California Corporation, 5 in the amount of $1,000. 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. 7 8 Dated: November 8, 2022 9 SUSAN ILLSTON 10 United States District Judge ll a 12

13 14

15 16 € = 17 6 Zz 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Johnson v. Burton, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/johnson-v-burton-cand-2022.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack