Arasan Chip Systems, Inc. v. Stream TV Networks, Inc. ( 2020 )

1 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 4 5 ARASAN CHIP SYSTEMS, INC., Case No. 20-cv-01848-SVK 6 Plaintiff, ORDER FOR REASSIGNMENT TO A DISTRICT JUDGE; REPORT AND 7 v. RECOMMENDATION TO ENTER STIPULATED JUDGMENT 8 STREAM TV NETWORKS, INC., Re: Dkt. No. 17 9 Defendant. 10 ORDER FOR REASSIGNMENT TO A DISTRICT JUDGE 11 Plaintiff Arasan Chip Systems, Inc. (“Arasan”) has filed a request for entry of a stipulated 12 judgment. Dkt. 17. Because Defendant Stream TV Networks, Inc. (“Stream TV”) has not 13 appeared or consented to the jurisdiction of a magistrate judge in this case, the Court ORDERS 14 the Clerk of Court to reassign this case to a District Judge with the following Report and 15 Recommendation. 16 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION RE 17 PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF STIPULATED JUDGMENT 18 I. Background 19 According to the declaration submitted by Arasan’s attorney, Vinod Nichani, in support of 20 Arasan’s request for entry of a stipulated judgment, the parties reached a settlement agreement that 21 was reduced to writing on April 29, 2020. Dkt. 16 (Nichani Decl.), ¶ 3 and Dkt. 16-1 (Ex. A – the 22 “Settlement Agreement”). As part of the settlement, Stream TV entered into a Stipulation for 23 Entry of Judgment. Dkt. 16, ¶ 3 and Dkt. 16-3 (Ex. C – the “Judgment”). Section 1.3 of the 24 Settlement Agreement provides as follows: 25 Arasan shall not seek to file or enforce the Judgment against Stream TV as long as Stream 26 TV timely makes all payments under the Payment Schedule to Arasan. Upon any default in the Payment Schedule by Stream TV, however, the full amount remaining plus interest 27 owing from Stream TV to Arasan under the payment schedule shall be due plus attorney’s the sums that remain due and owing, obtain judgment for such amounts and enforce the 1 Judgment in any matter permitted by law. Notwithstanding the foregoing, nothing herein 2 restricts Arasan from renewing the Judgment in accordance with applicable law at any time; the Parties acknowledge and agree that any such renewal does not constitute 3 enforcement of the Judgment as contemplated herein. 4 Dkt. 16-1, § 1.3. 5 The parties entered into an amendment to the settlement agreement on June 8, 2020 that 6 revises the payment schedule and states that “[u]pon the failure to pay the default provisions of the 7 [April 29, 2020] Settlement Agreement and Release shall apply.” Dkt. 16, ¶ 3 and Dkt. 16-2 (Ex. 8 B – the “Amendment”), § 1.1B. The Amendment further states that “[e]xcept as amended by this 9 Amendment, the Settlement Agreement shall remain unchanged and in full force and effect.” Dkt. 10 16-2, § 2. Accordingly, upon any default in the payment schedule (as modified in the 11 Amendment), Arasan is entitled to file the Judgment for sums that remain due and owing and 12 obtain judgment for such amounts. See Dkt. 16-1 § 1.3. 13 Counsel for Arasan states in his declaration that the total amount due from Stream TV 14 under the Settlement Agreement is $175,000. Dkt. 16 ¶ 5; see also Dkt. 16-2 § 1.1. Stream TV 15 made an initial payment of $30,000. Dkt. 16 ¶ 5; see also Dkt. 16-2 § 1.1.A. Under the payment 16 schedule in the Amendment, Stream TV was required to remit $10,000 to Arasan each Friday, 17 beginning on June 19, 2020, until the remaining balance of $145,000 was paid. Dkt. 16-2 § 1.1.B. 18 However, according to Arasan’s counsel, Stream TV made only one payment of $10,000, which 19 was paid on August 13, 2020, and no further payments since then. Dkt. 16 ¶¶ 5-6. 20 Accordingly, pursuant to the terms of the Settlement Agreement, Arasan seeks entry of the 21 Judgment, in the amount of the balance owed under the Settlement Agreement ($135,000) plus 22 $5,000 in attorney’s fees and $500 in costs, for a total of $140,500. 23 II. Legal Standard 24 “[C]ourts have inherent power summarily to enforce a settlement agreement with respect to 25 an action pending before it; the actual merits of the controversy become inconsequential.” 26 Dacanay v. Mendoza, 573 F.2d 1075, 1078 (9th Cir. 1978). “The authority of a trial court to enter 27 a judgment enforcing a settlement agreement has as its foundation the policy favoring the 1 litigation.” Id. Pursuant to this authority, a trial court may enter a stipulated judgment entered 2 into as part of a settlement agreement, pursuant to the terms of the settlement agreement. See 3 Mohebbi v. Khazen, No. 3-cv-03044-BLF, 2019 WL 144865, at *7 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 9, 2019); Yelp 4 Inc. v. Herzstock, No. 15-CV-00693-PSG (LHK), 2018 WL 10638325, at *5 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 6, 5 2018). 6 Arasan has provided evidence that Stream TV has defaulted on the payment terms set forth 7 in the Amendment, as well as evidence of the proper amount of the stipulated judgment. See Dkt. 8 16 ¶¶ 5-7. Stream TV has not opposed Arasan’s request for entry of the stipulated judgment. The 9 Court notes that Arasan has not filed a proof of service of its motion on Stream TV. Stream TV 10 has not appeared in this matter and thus presumably does not receive ECF notices of filings in this 11 case. Accordingly, Stream TV may not be aware of Arasan’s motion and thus may not have had 12 an opportunity to counter Arasan’s showing that Stream TV has defaulted on settlement payments 13 and/or its showing as to the balance owed. However, the parties’ Settlement Agreement expressly 14 provides that in the event of default, Arasan shall be permitted to file the stipulation for judgment 15 for the sums that remain due and owing, obtain judgment for such amounts, and enforce the 16 Judgment in any matter permitted by law “[w]ithout prior notice to Stream TV.” Dkt. 16-1 § 1.3. 17 Moreover, Stream TV is aware of the litigation, both because it was served with the summons and 18 complaint and because the Settlement Agreement expressly refers to it. See Dkt. 7; Dkt. 16-1 at 1. 19 Accordingly, the undersigned RECOMMENDS entry of the stipulated judgment proposed 20 by Arasan. However, to help ensure that there is no future dispute concerning the stipulated 21 judgment, the Court will order Arasan to serve a copy of this Order on Stream TV, which will then 22 have an opportunity to object to this report and recommendation pursuant to Civil Local Rule 72- 23 3. 24 III. CONCLUSION AND DISPOSITION 25 For the foregoing reasons, the Court ORDERS that this case be reassigned to a District 26 Judge. The Court RECOMMENDS that the District Judge grant Arasan’s request for entry of the 27 stipulated judgment. The Court ORDERS Arasan to immediately (1) serve a copy of this Order 1 and by email, and (2) file a proof of service on ECF. 2 Any party may file objections to this Report and Recommendation within 14 days of 3 service. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); Civ. L.R. 72-3. 4 SO ORDERED. 5 Dated: November 19, 2020 6 7 asin vert g SUSAN VAN KEULEN United States Magistrate Judge 9 10 11 12 «44 15 16 17 Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28