Orozco v. Ford Motor Company

• Court: District Court, N.D. California
• Decided: March 12, 2024
• Docket: 3:23-cv-03673
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 7 8 LUIS OROZCO, Case No. 23-cv-03673-PHK

9 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING REQUEST FOR 10 v. ENTRY OF JUDGMENT PURSUANR TO FED. R. CIV. P. 68(a) 11 FORD MOTOR COMPANY, Re: Dkt. 30 Defendant. 12

13 14 15 On December 28, 2022, Plaintiff Luis Orozco commenced this action against Defendant 16 Ford Motor Company in the Superior Court of California for Sonoma County, asserting violations 17 of the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, CAL. CIV. CODE §§ 1791 et seq., as well as 18 claims for breach of implied warranty of merchantability and fraudulent inducement-concealment. 19 [Dkt. 1-2]. On July 25, 2023, Defendant removed this action to federal court pursuant to 28 20 U.S.C. §§ 1332, 1441, and 1446. [Dkt. 1]. On January 11, 2024, the case was reassigned to this 21 Court. [Dkt. 26]. The Parties have consented to proceed before a Magistrate Judge for all 22 purposes, including the entry of final judgment. See Dkts. 21, 28-29. 23 On February 26, 2024, Plaintiff filed the instant request for entry of judgment under 24 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 68. [Dkt. 30]. Therein, Plaintiff asserts that, on February 8, 25 2024, he accepted Defendant’s Rule 68 offer of judgment, in the amount of $145,000.00 with 26 other terms as set forth therein. Id. at 2. Plaintiff has attached the executed offer of judgment, 27 including proof of service, as an exhibit to the request for entry of judgment. Id. at 3-8. 1 judgment and acceptance thereof, provides as follows:

2 At least 14 days before the date set for trial, a party defending against a claim may serve on an opposing party an offer to allow judgment on 3 specified terms, with the costs then accrued. If, within 14 days after being served, the opposing party serves written notice accepting the offer, either 4 party may then file the offer and notice of acceptance, plus proof of service. The clerk must then enter judgment. 5 6 Fed. R. Civ. P. 68(a). 7 An offer of judgment under Rule 68 “is more consequential than a run-of-the-mill 8 settlement offer.” Kubiak v. Cnty. of Ravalli, 32 F.4th 1182, 1187 (9th Cir. 2022). “[A] Rule 68 9 offer has a binding effect when refused as well as when accepted.” Id. (quoting Radecki v. Amoco 10 Oil Co., 858 F.2d 397, 402 (8th Cir. 1988)). “A Rule 68 ‘offer, once made, is non-negotiable; it is 11 either accepted, in which case it is automatically entered by the clerk of court, or rejected, in 12 which case it stands as the marker by which the plaintiff’s results are timely measured.’” Id. at 13 1188 (quoting Nusom v. Comh Woodburn, Inc., 122 F.3d 830, 834 (9th Cir. 1997)). 14 “Rule 68 allows no discretion on the part of the district court.” Id. at 1187. “If the 15 plaintiff accepts a Rule 68 offer, ‘it is automatically entered by the clerk of court.’” Id. (quoting 16 Beauchamp v. Anaheim Union High Sch. Dist., 816 F.3d 1216, 1223 (9th Cir. 2016)). Rule 68 17 offers of judgment are analyzed in the same manner as contracts, and thus, “any ambiguities are 18 construed against the drafter.” Id. (quoting Miller v. City of Portland, 868 F.3d 846, 851 (9th Cir. 19 2017)). 20 Here, Defendant served Plaintiff with a Rule 68 offer of judgment on January 25, 2024, 21 which contained the following summarized terms: (1) Plaintiff will surrender the subject vehicle in 22 this action to Defendant pursuant to the accepted terms in the offer; (2) Defendant will pay 23 Plaintiff $145,000.00 for the subject vehicle to settle all of Plaintiff’s claims; and (3) Plaintiff may 24 seek reasonable costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees pursuant to a properly noticed motion should 25 the Parties be unable to resolve issues regarding such attorneys’ fees and costs. [Dkt. 30 at 5-7]. 26 Plaintiff accepted Defendant’s offer in writing on February 8, 2024. Id. at 7. 27 Pursuant to Rule 68, Defendant’s deadline to respond to or oppose Plaintiff’s motion for ] 2024. That deadline passed with no filing or opposition by Defendant to the motion, which is not 2 || surprising in light of Defendant’s written acceptance of the offer of judgment. Accordingly, the 3 Court FINDS, based on the record, that Defendant does not oppose the motion for entry of 4 || judgment and further VACATES the requirement for Plaintiff to file a reply brief by March 18, 5 || 2024. [Dkt. 30]. 6 In light of the foregoing and the applicable legal standards, the Court finds that Defendant 7 || has complied with the requirements of Rule 68 for proffering an offer of judgment, and that 8 || Plaintiff complied with the requirements under Rule 68 for accepting an offer of judgment. 9 || For these reasons, the Court hereby DIRECTS the Clerk of Court to ENTER JUDGMENT in 10 || this matter against Defendant in accordance with the Parties’ agreement regarding the accepted 11 offer of judgment. 12 Accordingly, the Court ORDERS that: 13 1. Plaintiff's request for entry of judgment under Federal Rule of Civil 68 [Dkt. 30] is GRANTED. 3 15 2. The Clerk of Court shall ENTER JUDGMENT in favor of Plaintiff and against a 16 Defendant pursuant to the terms of Defendant’s accepted offer of judgment dated January 2 17 25, 2024 under Rule 68. Z 18 3. The Status Conference set for March 15, 2024 is VACATED. 19 4. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to terminate this case from the Court’s docket. 20 21 IT IS SO ORDERED. 22 Dated: March 12, 2024 23 24 PETER H. KANG 25 United States Magistrate Judge 26 27 28