Wilson v. Quality Loan Service Corporation
- Yvonne Rogers
- 4:20-cv-00479
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Mark Wilson v. Quality Loan Service Corporation, Judge Rogers dismissed the action with prejudice under a settlement and retained jurisdiction to enforce it.
The dismissal affects Mark Wilson and the defendants named in the action, including Quality Loan Service Corporation and JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.; the court retained authority to address disputes about their settlement agreement.
What happened
Mark Wilson v. Quality Loan Service Corporation involved claims against Quality Loan Service Corporation, JPMorgan Chase Bank, and other listed defendants. Wilson and JPMorgan jointly asked the court to dismiss the action under their settlement agreement.
The settlement was reached and placed on the record during a May 27, 2020, settlement conference. The order says each party would pay its own attorney’s fees and costs.
Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers dismissed the action with prejudice under the settlement agreement, including as to Quality Loan Service Corporation. The court retained jurisdiction to enforce the agreement and resolve related disputes.
The detailed version
- Wilson v. Quality Loan Service Corporation · No. 4:20-cv-00479
- Yvonne Rogers
- Sept. 30, 2020
Background
Mark Wilson brought the action against Quality Loan Service Corporation, JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., and other defendants identified in the complaint. The order states that Wilson and JPMorgan filed a joint stipulation under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). Their settlement agreement had been reached and placed on the record on May 27, 2020, during a settlement conference before Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler. The agreement was entered as docket number 46.
Ruling
The court ordered that the action be dismissed with prejudice under the terms of the settlement agreement. The order states that the dismissal applies to all claims between the parties and applies to Quality Loan Service Corporation under California Civil Code section 2924.1(d). Each party was ordered to bear its own attorney’s fees and costs.
The court retained jurisdiction to enforce the settlement agreement and resolve disputes, including legal issues, relating to it. If a dispute arises, the parties agreed to submit it to Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler, or to the judge assigned to the case if Judge Beeler is unavailable or no longer serving on the court. The settlement agreement was incorporated into the dismissal order. The order did not decide the underlying claims on their merits.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.