Board of Trustees of the Glaziers, Architectural Metal & Glass Workers Local Union 1399 Health & Welfare Trust v. Summit Commercial Floors, Inc. ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE ) Case No.: 3:21-cv-00081-BEN-AHG GLAZIERS, ARCHITECTURAL, ) 12 METAL & GLASS WORKERS LOCAL ) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 13 UNION #1399 HEALTH & WELFARE ) REGARDING DISMISSAL TRUST, ) 14 ) [ECF No. 21] Plaintiff, 15 ) v. ) 16 ) SUMMIT COMMERCIAL FLOORS, 17 ) INC., a California corporation, ) 18 Defendant. ) 19 20 Plaintiff BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE GLAZIERS, ARCHITECTURAL 21 METAL & GLASS WORKERS LOCAL UNION #1399 HEALTH & WELFARE TRUST 22 (“Plaintiff”) brings this action to redress violations or enforce the terms of Section 502(e) 23 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”), as amended, 29 24 U.S.C § 1132(e), against Defendant SUMMIT COMMERCIAL FLOORS, INC., a 25 California corporation (“Defendant” or “Summit”). Complaint, ECF No. 1 (“Compl.”). 26 A detailed factual and procedural background was set forth in the Court’s previous 27 order and is incorporated herein. See Order, ECF No. 21 (incorporating the Court’s May 28 19, 2021 Order, ECF No. 18, also denying the Motion for Entry of Stipulated Judgment). ! In the June 23, 2021 Order, this Court denied the second Motion for Entry of 2 Stipulated Judgment filed in this case, see ECF No. 17, “as moot given (1) the settlement 3 terms have already been read into the record and (2) resolution of all claims between the 4 parties brings the Court’s Article II jurisdiction into question.” See ECF No. 21. That > || order elaborated that once the parties have settled a case, no live case or controversy exists, 6 meaning the Court lacks jurisdiction to take any action in the matter pursuant to Article II 7 |l of the United States Constitution. Compare ECF No. 18 at 4-8 (citing Wigton v. Murphy, 8 F. Supp. 3d 1121, 1121-22 (D. Mont. 2019) (denying a Motion to Approve a 9 Stipulation for Entry of Judgement because the settlement of the claims in a case where no 10 ongoing monitoring is required (such as consent decrees) means there is no longer an 11 || Article III “case or controversy” sufficient to vest the court, a court of limited jurisdiction, 12 |) with subject matter jurisdiction) with U.S. CONST., ART. III, § 2 (limiting the subject-matter 13 jurisdiction of federal courts to justiciable “cases” and “controversies”). The Court 14 || reiterated that as other courts have pointed out, the proper course of action once a settlement 15 |/has been finalized is to file a stipulation for dismissal pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1) of the 16 || Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See id. at 8; see also Wigton, 410 F. Supp. 3d at 1122 17 (noting that a stipulated judgment “grants an advisory opinion about reasonable settlement 18 |! amounts and turns the court’s imprimatur into a tactical and strategic tool”). Finally, the 19 || Court ordered Plaintiff and Defendant to file a Stipulation or Notice of Dismissal pursuant 20 Rule 41(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure within thirty (30) days of this 21 order. It stated that if no such filing is made by Wednesday, July 21, 2021, the Court would 22 set an Order to Show Cause as to why this case should not be dismissed. 23 To date, no Stipulation or Notice of Dismissal has been filed. Thus, unless one is 24 |! filed, the Court sets a Status Conference for Monday, December 13, 2021, at 10:30 a.m. 25 IT IS SO ORDERED. 26 || DATED: December 2, 2021 ON. ROGER T. BENITE 28 United States District Judge 2.