Garcia v. Juarez

Filing 157

ORDER for Defendant to File Motion Regarding Settlement signed by District Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 04/26/2017. (Flores, E)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 ROBERTO M. GARCIA, JR., 9 10 CASE NO. 1:12-CV-0750 AWI EPG (PC) Plaintiff ORDER FOR DEFENDANT TO FILE MOTION REGARDING SETTLEMENT v. 11 MATTHEW M. JUAREZ, JR., 12 Defendant 13 14 15 On April 24, 2017, the parties held a settlement conference before Magistrate Judge 16 Oberto. See Doc. Nos. 153, 156. The first minute entry on April 24, 2017 indicated that the case 17 had not settled. See Doc. No. 153. 18 The same day, Defendant filed a request for clarification of the minute entry. See Doc. No. 19 154. In pertinent part, the request states: “The defendant’s position at the settlement conference is 20 that the case had settled and the matter should be completely dismissed. Plaintiff disputed a term 21 of the settlement regarding disbursement of the settlement proceeds giving rise to the settlement 22 conference request.” Id. Defendant was concerned that the Magistrate Judge was taking a 23 position on the settlement issue. See id. 24 25 26 After receipt of Defendant’s request, corrected minutes were issued. See Doc. No. 156. The corrected minutes simply states that a settlement conference occurred. See id. On April 25, 2017, Magistrate Judge Oberto issued an order that vacated the first minute 27 entry and expressly stated that she takes no position as to whether an enforceable settlement 28 agreement exists. See Doc. No. 155. 1 Given the request for clarification, the Court understands Defendant to be taking the 2 position that there is an enforceable settlement agreement in this case. District courts have the 3 power to enforce an agreement to settle cases that are pending before them. Callie v. Near, 829 4 F.2d 888, 890 (9th Cir. 1987). If Defendant believes that there is an enforceable settlement 5 agreement, then that issue should be decided before trial in this matter proceeds. Given the 6 ramifications of a settlement agreement, the Court believes that the most efficient use of time and 7 resources would be for the Defendant to file an appropriate motion to enforce the settlement 8 agreement. 9 10 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 11 1. On or by May 10, 2017, Defendant shall file a motion to enforce settlement;1 12 2. On or by May 17, 2017, Plaintiff shall file a response/opposition; 13 3. On or by May 24, 2017, Defendant may file a reply; and 14 4. If, after reviewing the full briefing and evidence from the parties, the Court determines that 15 a hearing is necessary, it will set a hearing at that time. 16 17 18 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: April 26, 2017 SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 If the Defendant determines after further review that an enforceable settlement does not exist, Defendant shall file a notice to the Court that he does not contend that an enforceable settlement agreement exists. Upon the filing of such notice, the above briefing schedule shall be considered vacated. 2

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?