Johnson v. L. Wang Family Partners, LP
- Virginia Demarchi
- 5:19-cv-00207
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Johnson v. L. Wang Family Partners, Judge Demarchi denied without prejudice a consent decree because it would provide for indefinite court jurisdiction.
Scott Johnson and L. Wang Family Partners, LP, along with the other defendants named in the case, were affected because the proposed consent decree was not entered and the parties were invited to revise its jurisdiction provision.
What happened
In Johnson v. L. Wang Family Partners, LP, the parties asked the court to enter a proposed consent decree resolving Scott Johnson’s claims for injunctive relief.
The proposed decree said the defendants would maintain remedial work indefinitely, while another provision would keep the court’s authority to enforce the decree for 24 months or until the relief was completed, whichever came later. The court found that these provisions could require indefinite court oversight.
Judge Virginia K. Demarchi denied without prejudice the request to enter the consent decree. The parties could submit a revised limit on the court’s enforcement authority, such as a period not exceeding 24 months.
The detailed version
- Johnson v. L. Wang Family Partners, LP · No. 5:19-cv-00207
- Virginia Demarchi
- Nov. 14, 2019
Background
The parties filed a proposed consent decree resolving Scott Johnson’s claims concerning injunctive relief. A consent decree is a court-entered agreement that can be enforced as an order.
Paragraph 8 stated that the defendants would maintain all remedial work described in an attached exhibit “in its current condition.” Paragraph 12 provided that the court would retain authority to enforce the decree for 24 months after its entry, or until the relief was completed, whichever occurred later.
Court’s Analysis
The court read the two provisions together and concluded that they provided for indefinite retention of jurisdiction. The court stated that it would not retain jurisdiction in perpetuity to enforce a consent decree. It relied on Ninth Circuit decisions explaining that continuing jurisdiction to enforce a settlement agreement is discretionary and that a federal court may decline to exercise that jurisdiction even when the parties agree to it.
Disposition
The court denied without prejudice the parties’ request for an order entering the proposed consent decree. The parties could propose a limit on the court’s enforcement jurisdiction for the court’s consideration, such as a period not exceeding 24 months.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.