Capital Pure Assets, Ltd. v. CC Technology Corporation
2:24-cv-00680
D. Nev.Jun 18, 2025Background
- Capital Pure Assets, Ltd. ("Capital Pure") and CC Technology Corporation ("CCTC") entered into a joint venture, leading to disputes over performance and intent.
- Capital Pure asserted their joint venture was for a real estate project; CCTC counterclaimed, alleging the focus was on its "CannaCard" payment system and leveled fraud accusations.
- The parties executed a settlement agreement in February 2025, requiring an initial $14,000 payment by Counter-Defendants and delivery of a confession of judgment to resolve all claims and dismiss the case.
- After some delay, both the payment and confession of judgment were ultimately delivered, and contempt was purged.
- Cross-motions were filed concerning enforcement of the settlement and whether the case should be dismissed and if the court should retain jurisdiction to oversee further settlement obligations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff Argument (Counter-Defendants) | Defendant Argument (Counterclaimant) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Dismissal of the Case | Case should be dismissed per settlement upon payment | Dismissal is unwarranted due to additional breaches | Case is dismissed with prejudice |
| Retention of Jurisdiction | Court should not retain jurisdiction; parties bargained for confession of judgment mechanism | Court should retain jurisdiction to enforce future settlement terms | Court declines to retain jurisdiction |
| Enforce Additional Payments | No further court enforcement needed post-dismissal | Court should order further quarterly payments per settlement | Not addressed; dismissal controls |
| Entry of Confession of Judgment | Not specifically addressed | Seeks entry of judgment based on limited argument | Court declines for lack of development |
Key Cases Cited
- In re City Equities Anaheim, Ltd., 22 F.3d 954 (9th Cir. 2021) (district courts have inherent authority to enforce settlement agreements)
- Jones v. McDaniel, 717 F.3d 1062 (9th Cir. 2013) (enforcement of settlement agreements governed by state law)
- May v. Anderson, 119 P.3d 1254 (Nev. 2005) (contract formation under Nevada law requires offer, acceptance, meeting of the minds, and consideration)
- Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375 (1994) (retention of jurisdiction over settlement is discretionary)