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