Brooke v. Grand Hyatt SF LLC ( 2020 )


Menu:
  • 1 2 3 4 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 THERESA BROOKE, Case No. 19-cv-07630-MMC 8 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING STIPULATION OF 9 v. DISMISSAL 10 GRAND HYATT SF LLC, Defendant. 11 12 13 The Court is in receipt of the parties' "Stipulation of Dismissal With Prejudice," as 14 well as a proposed order approving the stipulation, both filed October 5, 2020. 15 By order filed May 7, 2020, the Court dismissed plaintiff's complaint without further 16 leave to amend. That same date, the Clerk of Court entered judgment and plaintiff filed a 17 notice of appeal. On July 21, 2020, plaintiff filed a "Notice of Settlement." 18 As plaintiff's appeal of the judgment remains pending before the Court of Appeals 19 for the Ninth Circuit,1 this Court lacks jurisdiction to approve the parties' stipulation. In 20 particular, the stipulation, although not expressly acknowledging such request, 21 necessarily asks the Court to vacate the judgment, as, unless the judgment is set aside, 22 there are no claims to dismiss. See Crateo, Inc. v. Intermark, Inc., 536 F.23d 862, 869 23 (9th Cir. 1976) (holding where appeal from judgment is "pending," district court has "no 24 jurisdiction" to vacate judgment). 25 Moreover, even if the Court had jurisdiction to consider the stipulation, the parties 26 27 1 It appears plaintiff has not filed the Notice of Settlement with the Court of 1 have failed to show the stipulation should be approved. Specifically, "mootness by 2 reason of settlement does not justify vacatur of a judgment." See U.S. Bancorp Mortgage 3 || Co. v. Bonner Mall Partnership, 513 U.S. 18, 29 (1994). Rather, vacatur of a judgment 4 || may be granted only upon a showing of "exceptional circumstances,” which 5 || circumstances must be more than "the mere fact that the settlement agreement provides 6 for vacatur,” see id., and, in this instance, the parties have failed to identify any reason for 7 || their implicit request for vacatur of the judgment. 8 Accordingly, the parties' request for entry of an order of dismissal is hereby 9 || DENIED. 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. 11 12 || Dated: October 9, 2020 . 5 INE M. CHESNEY «13 United States District Judge © 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Document Info

Docket Number: 3:19-cv-07630

Filed Date: 10/9/2020

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 6/20/2024