Sengul v. Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ORHAN SENGUL, an individual, Case No.: 19cv2034-GPC(MSB) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 13 v. REQUEST TO VACATE ORDER GRANTING JOINT MOTION TO 14 QUALCOMM TECHNOLOGIES, INC., DISMISS WITH PREJUDICE a California Corporation, 15 Defendant. [Dkt. No. 20.] 16 17 After the case had been dismissed pursuant to a joint motion to dismiss due to a 18 settlement of the case on May 12, 2020, on August 6, 2021, the Clerk of Court invited the 19 parties to respond to District Judge Janis L. Sammartino’s recent disclosure of a conflict 20 in the case where a family member owned stock in Qualcomm, Inc. when the case was 21 pending. (Dkt. No. 19.) The August 6, 2021 letter informed the parties that while Judge 22 Sammartino was presiding over the case, she was unaware she had financial conflict and 23 that, if known, it would have required her recusal under the Code of Conduct for United 24 States Judges. (Id.) Plaintiff filed a response essentially requesting to vacate the order on 25 joint motion to dismiss and to proceed with a jury trial. (Dkt. No. 20.) He also claims 26 that he was pressured to settle the case. (Id.) Defendant responded that the dismissal 27 should not be set aside because Judge Sammartino made no substantive rulings in the 28 1 case, she states she was not aware of any financial interest her family member had in 2 Qualcomm at the time the case was pending, and Plaintiff’s claim he was pressured to 3 settle the case is belied by the Court’s record. (Dkt. No. 23.) 4 Background 5 On October 19, 2019, Plaintiff Orhan Sengul, with counsel, filed a complaint 6 against Defendant Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. for employment discrimination and 7 retaliation. (Dkt. No. 1, Compl.) On March 31, 2020, Judge Sammartino granted an 8 unopposed motion to withdraw as Plaintiff’s counsel with a supporting declaration by 9 Plaintiff. (Dkt. No. 13.) On April 17, 2020, the case settled before the Magistrate Judge 10 and the terms were placed on the record. (Dkt. Nos. 15, 16.) After the settlement had 11 been reached, Defendant prepared and sent the settlement agreement and release of all 12 claims to Plaintiff which he signed on May 6, 2020. (Dkt. No. 23-1, Sullivan Decl. ¶ 4.) 13 The settlement agreement stated, 14 No Claim of Mistake. The parties declare and represent that they intend that this Agreement be complete and not subject to any claim of 15 mistake, and that the releases herein express a full and complete release 16 and, regardless of the adequacy or inadequacy of the consideration, each intends the releases herein to be final and complete. Each party 17 executes this release with the full knowledge that this release covers all 18 possible claims, to the fullest extent permitted by law. 19 (Id.) Pursuant to the settlement agreement, Plaintiff received a monetary settlement. (Id. 20 ¶ 5.) On May 11, 2020, the parties filed a joint motion to dismiss the complaint with 21 prejudice which Judge Sammartino granted on May 12, 2020. (Dkt. Nos. 17, 18.) The 22 joint motion to dismiss indicated that the dismissal was based on the parties’ settlement 23 of the case. (Dkt. No. 17.) 24 Discussion 25 Disqualification of a judge is governed by 28 U.S.C. § 455. “Any justice, judge, or 26 magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which 27 his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” 28 U.S.C. § 455(a). In addition, a 28 1 judge shall disqualify himself where he “knows that he, individually or as a fiduciary, or 2 his spouse or minor child residing in his household, has a financial interest in the subject 3 matter in controversy or in a party to the proceeding, or any other interest that could be 4 substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding.” Id. § 455(b)(4). 5 Plaintiff’s request seeking to vacate the order on joint motion to dismiss based on a 6 judge’s disqualification falls under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 60(b)(6). 7 See Liljeberg v. Health Servs., Acquisition Corp., 486 U.S. 847, 863 (1988) (§ 455 does 8 not authorize the reopening of closed litigation but Rule 60(b)(6) provides the courts 9 broad authority to relieve a party from final judgment). Rule 60(b)(6) provides that “the 10 court may relieve a party from a final judgment, order or proceeding” for “any other 11 reason that justifies relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(6). This rule applies to “accomplish 12 justice” but only under “extraordinary circumstances.” Liljeberg, 486 U.S. at 864. For 13 purposes of assessing whether a judgment should be vacated for violations of § 455, “it is 14 appropriate to consider the risk of injustice to the parties in the particular case, the risk 15 that the denial of relief will produce injustice in other cases, and the risk of undermining 16 the public's confidence in the judicial process.” Id. 17 Early on in this case, the parties settled before the Magistrate Judge and the case 18 was subsequently jointly dismissed with prejudice based on the settlement. Judge 19 Sammartino had no role in the settlement of the case and did not make any substantive 20 rulings in the case. Therefore, because the settlement was procured before the Magistrate 21 Judge who had no financial conflict in the case, there would no injustice to Plaintiff as he 22 agreed to settle the case, provided Defendant with a full and complete release, and 23 received a monetary settlement. See e.g., Roe v. White, No. C 03-04035 CRB 2008 WL 24 1808497, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 22, 2008) (“The only risk of injustice in this case arises 25 from White's request that the Court vacate a final judgment that was affirmed by the 26 Ninth Circuit following a binding settlement agreement knowingly entered into by 27 White.”). Plaintiff’s additional claim that he was pressured to settle the case has no 28 bearing on the issue before the Court concerning Judge Sammartino’s financial conflict in 1 case. On the other hand, there would be injustice to Defendant if the Court were to 2 || vacate the order of dismissal by undoing a settlement to which the parties agreed and to 3 || which it paid out a monetary settlement. Next, the Court sees no risk that the denial of 4 || relief will produce injustice in other cases and cannot fathom any risk of undermining the 5 || public's confidence in the judicial process where the Magistrate Judge who presided over 6 || the settlement had no conflict, and where Judge Sammartino had no role in the settlement 7 did not make any substantive rulings in the case. Plaintiff has not demonstrated that 8 Court should vacate the order on joint motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6). 9 Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs request to vacate the order granting 10 || joint motion to dismiss. The hearing set on October 15, 2021 shall be vacated. 11 IT IS SO ORDERED. 12 ||Dated: October 14, 2021 <= 14 United States District Judge 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28