Nathan Guerriero v. The president and CEO of CR and R Incorporated et al
Filing
44
ORDER DISMISSING CASE WITH PREJUDICE by Judge John F. Walter. (See document for further details.) (sbou)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
NATHAN GUERRIERO,
11
12
13
Plaintiff,
v.
THE PRESIDENT AND CEO OF CR&R
INCORPORATED, et al.,
14
Defendants.
15
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CASE NO. ED CV 15-1655-JFW (PJW)
ORDER DISMISSING CASE WITH
PREJUDICE
16
17
On October 25, 2016, Plaintiff Nathan Guerriero and Defendants
18
County of Riverside, Riverside County Board of Supervisors, Kevin
19
Jeffries, John Tavaglione, Chuck Washington, John Benoit, and Marion
20
Ashley’s (hereinafter the “Riverside Defendants”) took part in a
21
mediation before Steven C. Geeting, a volunteer panel mediator for the
22
United States District Court for the Central District of California.
23
The parties ultimately agreed to settle the case and Plaintiff signed
24
a Settlement Agreement and Release.
25
(Doc. No. 38 at 8.)
On or about November 7, 2016, Defendants’ counsel met with
26
Plaintiff in order to have Plaintiff sign a stipulation for dismissal.
27
(Doc. No. 38 at 2.)
28
would not agree to dismiss the lawsuit because the County was “out to
Plaintiff refused, explaining to counsel that he
1
get him.”
2
mediator for his assistance in obtaining Plaintiff’s signature on the
3
Stipulation for Dismissal.
4
Defendants’ counsel that he, too, was unable to convince Plaintiff to
5
sign the dismissal.
6
(Id.)
Thereafter, Defendants’ counsel contacted the
(Id. at 3.)
The mediator informed
(Id.)
On February 10, 2017, the magistrate judge held a telephonic
7
hearing with Plaintiff and Defendants’ counsel to discuss the
8
dismissal form.
9
dismiss the case because he believed that the mediator, Mr. Geeting,
Plaintiff told the magistrate judge that he would not
10
was working for the Defendants when he conducted the mediation.
(Doc.
11
No. 40.)
12
evidentiary hearing on February 16, 2017.
13
and explained on the record to the magistrate judge and Plaintiff that
14
he was an independent mediator and was not working on behalf of the
15
City or County of Riverside or any of the individual Defendants when
16
he conducted the mediation in this case.
17
accepted these representations.
In light of this allegation, the magistrate judge held an
(Id.)
Mr. Geeting appeared
The magistrate judge
(Doc. No. 43.)
18
Based on this record, the Court finds that Plaintiff and
19
Defendant entered into a binding settlement agreement and signed a
20
written settlement agreement reflecting that agreement, which is
21
enforceable.
22
see also Mid-South Towing Co. v. Har-Win, Inc., 733 F.2d 386, 389 (5th
23
Cir. 1984); Qzyagcilar v. Davis, 701 F.2d 306, 308 (4th Cir. 1983);
24
Autera v. Robinson, 419 F.2d 1197, 1200 (D.C. Cir. 1969).
25
with that binding settlement agreement, the Court hereby orders the
26
case dismissed with prejudice.
27
1131, 1141 (9th Cir. 2002) (“At a time where the resources of the
28
federal judiciary, and this Circuit especially, are strained to the
See Callie v. Near, 829 F.2d 888, 890 (9th Cir. 1987);
Consistent
See Doi v. Halekulani Corp., 276 F.3d
2
1
breaking point, we cannot countenance a plaintiff’s agreeing to settle
2
a case in open court, then subsequently disavowing the settlement when
3
it suits her.”)
4
IT IS SO ORDERED.
5
DATED: March 6, 2017
6
7
________________________________
JOHN F. WALTER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
8
9
10
Presented by:
11
12
13
________________________________
Patrick J. Walsh
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?