Johnson v. L. Wang Family Partners, LP

N.D. California

Johnson v. L. Wang Family Partners, LP

DecidedNovember 14, 2019

Docket5:19-cv-00207

StatusUnknown

This text of Johnson v. L. Wang Family Partners, LP (Johnson v. L. Wang Family Partners, LP) 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. L. Wang Family Partners, LP, (N.D. Cal. 2019).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 SAN JOSE DIVISION 7 8 SCOTT JOHNSON, Case No. 19-cv-00207-VKD

9 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING WITHOUT 10 v. PREJUDICE REQUEST FOR CONSENT DECREE 11 L. WANG FAMILY PARTNERS, LP, et al., Re: Dkt. No. 51 Defendants. 12

13 On November 13, 2019, the parties filed a proposed consent decree resolving plaintiff 14 Scott Johnson’s claims with respect to injunctive relief. Dkt. No. 51. The Court has reviewed the 15 proposed consent decree and its attached documents. Paragraph 8 of the proposed consent decree 16 states that “Defendants agree to maintain all of the remedial work set forth [in the attached Exhibit 17 A] in its current condition.” Id. at 3 (emphasis added). Paragraph 12 then contemplates the Court 18 retaining jurisdiction to enforce the terms of the consent decree “for twenty-four (24) months after 19 the date of this Consent Decree, or until the relief contemplated by this Order is completed, 20 whichever occurs later.” Id. at 4 (emphasis added). Read in conjunction, paragraphs 8 and 12 21 provide for the Court’s retention of jurisdiction indefinitely. 22 The Court declines to retain jurisdiction in perpetuity to enforce a consent decree. Arata v. 23 Nu Skin Int’l, Inc., 96 F.3d 1265, 1268–69 (9th Cir. 1995) (observing that a court’s exercise of 24 continuing jurisdiction to enforce a settlement agreement is entirely discretionary); Collins v. 25 Thompson, 8 F.3d 657, 659 (9th Cir. 1993) (“A federal court may refuse to exercise continuing 26 jurisdiction even though the parties have agreed to it.”). For this reason, the Court denies without 27 prejudice the parties’ request for an order entering the proposed consent decree. The parties may 1 || jurisdiction (for example, “not to exceed 24 months”) for the Court’s consideration. 2 IT IS SO ORDERED. 3 Dated: November 14, 2019 4 . 28 □ 5 VIRGINIA K. DEMARCHI 6 United States Magistrate Judge 7 8 9 10 11 12

15 16

= 17

Z 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 SAN JOSE DIVISION 7 8 SCOTT JOHNSON, Case No. 19-cv-00207-VKD

9 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING WITHOUT 10 v. PREJUDICE REQUEST FOR CONSENT DECREE 11 L. WANG FAMILY PARTNERS, LP, et al., Re: Dkt. No. 51 Defendants. 12

13 On November 13, 2019, the parties filed a proposed consent decree resolving plaintiff 14 Scott Johnson’s claims with respect to injunctive relief. Dkt. No. 51. The Court has reviewed the 15 proposed consent decree and its attached documents. Paragraph 8 of the proposed consent decree 16 states that “Defendants agree to maintain all of the remedial work set forth [in the attached Exhibit 17 A] in its current condition.” Id. at 3 (emphasis added). Paragraph 12 then contemplates the Court 18 retaining jurisdiction to enforce the terms of the consent decree “for twenty-four (24) months after 19 the date of this Consent Decree, or until the relief contemplated by this Order is completed, 20 whichever occurs later.” Id. at 4 (emphasis added). Read in conjunction, paragraphs 8 and 12 21 provide for the Court’s retention of jurisdiction indefinitely. 22 The Court declines to retain jurisdiction in perpetuity to enforce a consent decree. Arata v. 23 Nu Skin Int’l, Inc., 96 F.3d 1265, 1268–69 (9th Cir. 1995) (observing that a court’s exercise of 24 continuing jurisdiction to enforce a settlement agreement is entirely discretionary); Collins v. 25 Thompson, 8 F.3d 657, 659 (9th Cir. 1993) (“A federal court may refuse to exercise continuing 26 jurisdiction even though the parties have agreed to it.”). For this reason, the Court denies without 27 prejudice the parties’ request for an order entering the proposed consent decree. The parties may 1 || jurisdiction (for example, “not to exceed 24 months”) for the Court’s consideration. 2 IT IS SO ORDERED. 3 Dated: November 14, 2019 4 . 28 □ 5 VIRGINIA K. DEMARCHI 6 United States Magistrate Judge 7 8 9 10 11 12

15 16

= 17

Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Johnson v. L. Wang Family Partners, LP, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/johnson-v-l-wang-family-partners-lp-cand-2019.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack