Marie Rutledge v. FCA US LLC

Opinion

MARIE RUTLEDGE, No. 2:25-cv-00213-DAD-AC Plaintiff, v. ORDER DENYING PARTIES’ REQUEST TO ENTER JUDGMENT AND DIRECTING REQUIREMENTS OF FEDERAL RULE OF Defendant. CIVIL PROCEDURE 68 (Doc. No. 12) On June 16, 2025, the parties in this action filed a notice of settlement representing to the court that they would seek an entry of judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 68. (Doc. No. 8.) On September 9, 2025, the parties finally filed a joint stipulation in which they stated that plaintiff had “accepted Defendant FCA US LLC’s Offer of Judgment.” (Doc. No. 12.) Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 68 provides that judgment must be entered after “either party . . . file[s] an offer and notice of acceptance, plus proof of service.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 68(a). The court has reviewed the docket and has been unable to locate a filing from either party which includes the purported Rule 68 offer or a notice of acceptance of that offer. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 68 “was designed to function in a mechanical manner[,]” and accordingly the court cannot enter judgment where no offer of judgment or notice of acceptance is before it. Kubiak v. County of Ravalli, 32 F.4th 1182, 1188 (9th Cir. 2022); see generally Eaton v. FCA US, LLC, No. 5:23-cv-01707-SRM-KS, 2025 WL 1843245, at *1—2 (C.D. Cal. June 24, 2025) (declining to enter judgment where the parties failed to submit a proposed judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 68 along with other procedural failures). Accordingly, the court DENIES the parties’ joint request that the court enter judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 68, but does so without prejudice. The court DIRECTS the parties in the anticipated request to enter judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 68, which the court directs be filed within 14 days of the date of this order, to comply with the requirements of Rule 68(a). ' | pated: _ September 10, 2025 Dak A. 2, □□□ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE