United States District Court, D. Nevada
ROBERT G. GREENE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs,
JACOB TRANSPORTATION SERVICES, LLC, et al., Defendants.
M. Navarro, Chief Judge
before the Court is the Motion to Enjoin, (ECF No. 351),
filed by Plaintiffs Robert G. Greene, Thomas Schemkes, and
Gregory Green (collectively “Plaintiffs”), on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated.
Defendants Jacob Transportation Services, LLC
(“JTS”) and Carol and James Jimmerson
(collectively “Defendants”) filed a Response,
(ECF No. 353).
April 11, 2019, the Court held a hearing on Plaintiffs'
Motion to Enjoin and the parties were ordered to file
additional briefing, by April 18, 2019, addressing whether
the state court orders interfere with the Settlement Order,
and addressing whether the All Writs Act or Anti-Injunction
Act applies to this case. (Mins. Proceedings, ECF No. 354).
Plaintiffs and Defendants submitted supplemental briefs, (ECF
Nos. 355, 356). Additionally, Defendants filed a Motion
for Partial Relief Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
(“Rule”) 60(b)(5), (ECF No. 360). For the reasons
discussed herein, Plaintiffs' Motion to Enjoin and
Defendants' Motion for Partial Relief Under Rule 60(b)(5)
instant Motion arises from the Court's Order granting
final approval to the parties' class action settlement.
(See Settlement Order, ECF No. 344). Plaintiffs are
persons formerly employed by Defendant JTS as limousine
drivers. (See First Am. Compl. ¶¶ 16, ECF
No. 204). Defendants James and Carol Jimmerson are the sole
officers and owners of JTS. (Id. ¶ 8).
Plaintiffs initiated this class action suit (the
“Greene Class Action”) against
Defendants, asserting claims under the Fair Labor Standards
Act (“FLSA”) and Nevada wage-and-hour law.
(Id. ¶¶ 32-99).
here, the Court's Order on the parties' settlement
(the “Settlement Order”) incorporated by
reference the parties' settlement agreement (the
“Settlement Agreement”) and provides that
“Defendants shall fund the settlement by April 21,
2019.” (Settlement Order 3:20-21, ECF No. 344). The
Court expressly “retain[ed] jurisdiction to enforce the
terms of the settlement, including the payment of the
settlement fund.” (Id. 3:22-23). The Court
entered its Settlement Order on September 26, 2018, and the
clerk of court entered judgment the following day, closing
the case, (ECF Nos. 344, 345).
subsequently sued 17 class members (collectively the
“Drivers”) in state court for allegedly stealing
limousine rides during their employment with JTS and failing
to report their earnings (the “State Actions”).
In one of the State Actions, the class member, or Driver,
moved to dismiss for JTS's failure to pursue a compulsory
counterclaim in the Greene Class Action.
(See Order Denying Def.'s Mot. to Dismiss,
JTS v. Onofrietti, No. 18-C-011256 (March 19, 2019),
Ex. 4 to Resp. to Mot. to Enjoin, ECF No. 353-6). In denying
the motion, the court found that JTS did not waive and did
not release any claims against the Drivers in the
Greene Class Action. (Id. 2:21-23).
Additionally, the court determined that JTS's claims for
conversion, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of contract, and
unjust enrichment were permissive rather than compulsory
counterclaims in the Greene Class Action.
least six of the State Actions, JTS successfully moved the
Nevada state court for a writ of attachment and writ of
garnishment in aid of attachment. JTS expressly sought to
attach the class members' portions of their
yet-to-be-distributed settlement awards. For example, in one
of the cases,  JTS v. Gebrekiros, the court
The Plaintiffs have alleged that there is now due and owing
from Defendant to Plaintiffs [JTS and Bentley Transportation
Services, LLC] the principle sum of at least $5, 056.27. The
Plaintiffs have informed this Court that the Defendant's
portion of the settlement in [the Greene Class
Action] will be $518.20. Plaintiffs have also informed this
Court that Plaintiff believes that his money is currently in
the possession of James J. Jimmerson . . . .
(See Order 4:2-8, JTS v. Gebrekiros, No.
18-C-011252 (Apr. 2, 2019), Ex. A to Mot. to Enjoin, ECF No.
351-1). The court required that JTS post an undertaking as
security in the amount of $518.20 and stated the persons upon
whom writs of garnishment in aid of attachment may be served
are JTS, James J. Jimmerson, and Carol Jimmerson.
(Id. 4:12-17). The court described the property to
be attached as “Solomon Gebrekiros' portion of the
settlement in [the Greene Class Action] in the
amount of $518.20.” (Id. 4:18-22). The court
further ordered the clerk of court to issue a prejudgment
writ of attachment upon posting of JTS's undertaking, and
that “within 3 days after the Clerk of Court issues a
prejudgment writ of attachment, the Sherriff issue a writ of
garnishment in aid of attachment on James J. Jimmerson,
Esq.” (Id. 5:1- 9).
filed the instant Motion to Enjoin shortly thereafter,
contending, inter alia, that Defendants'
initiation of the State Actions is an attempt “to
attach the settlement proceeds so they can reduce their
liability under the Court's Judgment.” (Mot. to
Enjoin 5:1-5, ECF No. 351). The State Actions, Plaintiffs
continue, therefore constitute an impermissible interference
with this Court's Settlement Order and an encroachment on
its continued jurisdiction over the Settlement Agreement.
the All Writs Act, federal courts “may issue all writs
necessary or appropriate in aid of their respective
jurisdictions and agreeable to the usages and principles of
law.” See 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a). This
authority is substantially limited by the Anti-Injunction
Act, which prevents federal courts from enjoining
“proceedings in a State court except as expressly
authorized by Act of Congress, or where necessary in aid of
its jurisdiction, or to protect or effectuate its
judgments.” See 28 U.S.C. § 2283.
“Any doubts as to the propriety of a federal injunction
against state court proceedings should be resolved in favor
of permitting the state courts to proceed . . . .”
Atl. Coast Line R. Co. v. Bhd. of Locomotive
Engineers, 398 U.S. 281, 297 (1970). Thus, an injunction
may issue only upon “‘a strong and unequivocal
showing' that such relief is necessary.”
Sandpiper Vill. Condo. Ass'n., Inc. v. Louisiana-Pac.
Corp., 428 F.3d 831, 842 (9th Cir. 2005) (quoting
Bechtel Petroleum, Inc. v. Webster, 796 F.2d 252,
253-54 (9th Cir. 1986)).