MILLER v. BOYS & GIRLS CLUBS OF SNOHOMISH COUNTY

Case No. C15-2027-JCC.

MARTA MILLER, Plaintiff, v. BOYS & GIRLS CLUBS OF SNOHOMISH COUNTY, Defendant.

United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Seattle.

Editors Note
Applicable Law: 42 U.S.C. § 1981
Cause: 42 U.S.C. § 1981 Job Discrimination (Race)
Nature of Suit: 442 Civil Rights: Jobs
Source: PACER


Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Marta Miller, Plaintiff, represented by Rebecca Jane Roe , SCHROETER GOLDMARK & BENDER.

Marta Miller, Plaintiff, represented by Jamal N. Whitehead , SCHROETER GOLDMARK & BENDER.

Boys & Girls Clubs of Snohomish County, Defendant, represented by David W. Silke , GORDON & REES & Diana P. Danzberger , GORDON & REES LLP.


ORDER

JOHN C. COUGHENOUR, District Judge.

This matter comes before the Court on Defendant Boys & Girls Clubs of Snohomish County's motion for satisfaction of payment of the offer of judgment amount and an order of dismissal (Dkt. No. 49). Having thoroughly considered the parties' briefing and the relevant record, the Court finds oral argument unnecessary and hereby DENIES the motion for the reasons explained herein.

The Court detailed the facts of this case in its order on Defendant's motion for summary judgment. (See Dkt. No. 39 at 1-6.) On June 28, 2017, Plaintiff Marta Miller filed a timely notice of acceptance of an offer of judgment. (Dkt. No. 47.) However, before the Clerk entered a judgment, Defendant filed this current motion for satisfaction of payment of the offer of judgment and an order of dismissal. (Dkt. No. 49.) Defendant argues a judgment is not necessary at this time because it has satisfied its payment obligations. (See Dkt. No. 50-1.)

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 68, if a party accepts an offer within fourteen days of receipt and files a notice of acceptance with proof of service, "[t]he clerk must then enter judgment." Fed. R. Civ. P. 68(a) (emphasis added). Except under extremely limited circumstances, "the court has no choice about entering the agreed judgment." 12 Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ. § 3005 (2d ed.).

Defendant argues, however, that since payment has been made in full before a judgment was entered, the Court should enter a satisfaction of offer of judgment and an order of dismissal pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(5). (Dkt. No. 49 at 1.) However, "relief under Rule 60(b) is not readily justified, particularly with judgments based on Rule 68. . . . [P]laintiff should be assured that its acceptance will lead to judgment; in all but the most extraordinary circumstances mistakes should not affect this result." 12 Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ. § 3005.2 (2d ed.). Here, Defendant has made no compelling arguments why judgment should not be entered in Plaintiff's favor. Moreover, Rule 68 is clear that when all the requirements have been met, as is the case here, judgment must be entered. For the foregoing reasons, Defendant's motion (Dkt. No. 49) is DENIED. The Court DIRECTS the Clerk to enter a judgment in Plaintiff's favor.


Comment

1000 Characters Remaining

Leagle.com reserves the right to edit or remove comments but is under no obligation to do so, or to explain individual moderation decisions.

User Comments

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases