Diaz v. Nooter Construction Company
- Edward Chen
- 3:25-cv-07891
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Carlos Diaz v. Chevron Corporation, Judge Chen severed and remanded claims against Nooter after finding federal jurisdiction over settlement disbursements unclear.
Carlos Diaz’s claims against Nooter and his request for final settlement disbursements were sent to the state court.
What happened
In Carlos Diaz v. Chevron Corporation, Carlos Diaz asked the federal court to award final payments under a settlement that a state court had approved. The payments included a partial fee award and a cy pres award.
The court said it was unclear whether it had authority to award those payments. The state court had retained authority to interpret, carry out, and enforce matters related to the settlement.
Judge Edward M. Chen severed Diaz’s claims against Nooter under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 21 and remanded those claims to the state court. The order disposed of Docket No. 28.
The detailed version
- Diaz v. Nooter Construction Company · No. 3:25-cv-07891
- Edward Chen
- Sept. 9, 2025
Background
The court reviewed Carlos Diaz’s compliance statement. Diaz asked the court to award final disbursements under a settlement agreement with Nooter that a state court had approved. The opinion describes those disbursements as a partial fee award and a cy pres award.
Jurisdiction
The court stated that it was not clear whether it had jurisdiction to award the final disbursements. Diaz cited 28 U.S.C. § 1450. The court discussed authority indicating that, under that statute, a federal court may in some circumstances vacate a state-court default judgment when the case is removed after final judgment. It distinguished this case because the state court’s final judgment was based on a settlement agreement and the state court expressly retained jurisdiction to interpret, implement, and enforce matters related to that settlement.
Ruling
Under these circumstances, Judge Edward M. Chen severed Diaz’s claims against Nooter under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 21. The court remanded those claims to the state court, where Diaz may seek the final disbursements. The order states that it disposes of Docket No. 28.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.