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)

Download PDF
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?