Jimenez v. Ford Motor Company
- Vince Chhabria
- 3:21-cv-04967
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Abelardo Garcia Jimenez v. Ford Motor Company, Judge Chhabria granted fees and costs in part, denied keeping the case open, and entered settlement judgment.
The plaintiffs received the stated attorneys’ fees and costs, while Ford was subject to judgment consistent with the settlement and could not recover consideration for its late opposition as a separate ruling.
What happened
In Abelardo Garcia Jimenez v. Ford Motor Company, the parties reached a settlement under Rule 68, a rule governing formal settlement offers. They asked the court to keep the case open until the settlement terms were completed.
The court denied that request, explaining that a party can seek remedies for a settlement violation even after the case is closed. The court accepted Ford’s late opposition to the fee motions because the delay was excusable.
The court granted the motions for attorneys’ fees and costs in part, awarding the plaintiffs $16,323.50 in fees and $1,384.40 in costs, and entered judgment against Ford consistent with the settlement. Judge Chhabria also ruled that no additional fee multiplier was justified.
The detailed version
- Jimenez v. Ford Motor Company · No. 3:21-cv-04967
- Vince Chhabria
- Aug. 8, 2022
Background
The parties settled the case through a Rule 68 offer. The plaintiffs initially rejected Ford’s offer and later accepted an identical offer three months afterward. The plaintiffs sought attorneys’ fees and costs under the Song-Beverly Act. The parties also asked the court to keep the case open until the settlement terms were completed.
Request to Keep the Case Open
The court denied the parties’ request to keep the case open. It explained that ensuring compliance with a completed settlement agreement is not a reason to keep the case open. If one party fails to comply, the other party has remedies whether or not the case remains open.
Ford’s Late Opposition
Ford filed its opposition to the motions for fees and costs late. Although Ford did not file a separate motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b)(2), the court treated the opposition as a request to accept the late filing. The court found excusable neglect based on the short delay, the minimal risk of prejudice, the reasons for the delay, and Ford’s apparent good faith. The court therefore accepted Ford’s filing.
Attorneys’ Fees and Costs
The court granted the motions for attorneys’ fees and costs in part. It awarded the plaintiffs $16,323.50 in attorneys’ fees and $1,384.40 in costs under the Song-Beverly Act. These amounts were the amounts requested, minus the fees and costs incurred after the plaintiffs rejected Ford’s first Rule 68 offer.
The court held that Rule 68 prevented the plaintiffs from recovering fees and costs incurred after rejecting the initial offer because the case was later settled through an offer of identical value. The court also concluded that Rule 68 did not conflict with California law. The remaining fees and costs were reasonable. Because the case was relatively simple, the court declined to apply a lodestar multiplier, an increase to the basic fee calculation.
Disposition
The court granted the motions for attorneys’ fees and costs in part, denied the request to keep the case open, accepted Ford’s late filing, and entered judgment against Ford consistent with the parties’ Rule 68 settlement. Vince Chhabria signed the order as United States District Judge.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.