Sheet Metal Workers Pension Trust of Northern California v. Prime Mechanical…

Background

The plaintiffs submitted a proposed judgment based on the parties’ stipulation and requested judgment against “Defendants” in the amount of $170,730.87. The court reviewed the proposed judgment but did not enter it.

Service on Prime Mechanical

The plaintiffs had not filed proof that Prime Mechanical Service, Inc. was served with the summons and complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4. The court explained that, unless service is waived, Rule 4 requires proof of service to be filed with the court. The plaintiffs were directed either to complete service and file proof of service or to file proof that service had been waived. The court also noted that no lawyer for Prime Mechanical had appeared.

Proposed judgment against John M. Eshelman

The proposed judgment also sought judgment against John M. Eshelman, who was not named as a defendant in the complaint. The court noted that Eshelman’s individual signature was undated and appeared to be a generic electronic signature. It also found that the proposed judgment did not comply with Northern District of California Civil Local Rule 5-1(i)(3), which requires an appropriate attestation when a person’s signature is submitted without that person’s electronic filing credentials.

The court ordered the plaintiffs, within four days, to file a letter of no more than three pages explaining how judgment could be entered against Eshelman without an amended complaint, or alternatively to file an amended complaint adding him as a party. If Eshelman were added, the plaintiffs would also have to serve him with the summons and complaint naming him as a defendant, unless service was waived.

Subject-matter jurisdiction and settlement enforcement

The court stated that the parties cannot create federal subject-matter jurisdiction merely by agreeing to it. It also explained that a court may enforce a settlement agreement if it retains jurisdiction to enforce that agreement. The court found that a provision in the proposed judgment appeared insufficient because it referred to extending jurisdiction until the judgment was satisfied but did not refer to extending jurisdiction to enforce the settlement agreement itself.

Disposition

The court did not enter the proposed judgment and ordered the plaintiffs to address the service, signature, party-status, and jurisdiction issues. Judge Lisa J. Cisneros signed the order.