Love v. Jweinat
- William Orrick
- 3:18-cv-01299
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Love v. Jweinat, Judge Orrick denied Samuel Love’s request to enter a $13,513.74 settlement judgment because the court lacked jurisdiction.
Samuel Love and the defendants, including Elias Jweinat, because the court did not enter the requested judgment enforcing the settlement agreement.
What happened
In Love v. Jweinat, Samuel Love asked the court to enter a judgment based on a settlement agreement with the defendants.
Love asserted that the defendants had failed to make required settlement payments and requested a judgment for $13,513.74. The parties had agreed that the court would retain jurisdiction and that Love could seek a stipulated judgment after an uncured default, but they did not tell the court before the case was dismissed.
Judge William H. Orrick denied the application. He ruled that the dismissal order did not retain jurisdiction and that the requested change would go beyond correcting a clerical mistake under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(a).
The detailed version
- Love v. Jweinat · No. 3:18-cv-01299
- William Orrick
- July 21, 2020
Background
Samuel Love filed an ex parte application asking the court to enter a stipulated judgment that was part of the parties’ settlement agreement. Love asserted that the defendants had defaulted on settlement payments and requested judgment for $13,513.74.
The parties had agreed among themselves that the court would retain jurisdiction over the settlement. They also agreed that Love could file a stipulated judgment if a default was not cured. But they did not communicate that agreement to the court before the court entered its order dismissing the case. The dismissal order therefore did not mention retaining jurisdiction.
Court’s reasoning
The court concluded that it lacked jurisdiction to grant Love’s request. It considered Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(a), which permits a court to correct a clerical mistake or an omission in a judgment or order. The court explained that Rule 60(a) does not allow a court to make a correction that would reflect a new, later decision rather than fix a clerical error.
Because adding jurisdiction over the settlement would do more than correct a clerical mistake or omission, the court denied the application for entry of the stipulated judgment.
Disposition
Judge William H. Orrick denied Samuel Love’s ex parte application for entry of the stipulated judgment.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.