Jackson v. Dunham et al

Filing 93

ORDER signed by District Judge Troy L. Nunley on 8/24/2017 DENYING 90 Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement. (Michel, G.)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

DAJUAN JACKSON,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION TO ENFORCE SETTLEMENT
AGREEMENT

v.
DUNHAM, et al.,

15

No. 2:10-cv-03378-TLN-EFB

Defendants.

16
17

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff DaJuan Jackson’s (“Plaintiff”) Motion to

18

Enforce Settlement Agreement. (ECF No. 90.) Defendant Dunham (“Defendant”) responded in

19

opposition. (ECF No. 91.) The Court ordered Plaintiff to file a reply by May 1, 2017. (ECF No.

20

92.) Plaintiff has not done so. For the reasons discussed below, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s

21

motion to enforce settlement agreement (ECF No. 90).

22

Plaintiff states he reached a settlement agreement with Defendant which required

23

Defendant to pay Plaintiff a sum of money within 180 days of the date of the settlement

24

agreement. (ECF No. 90 at 1.) Plaintiff states he has not yet been paid, and he argues that at the

25

time he filed the instant motion the 180 day period had passed without payment so he is entitled

26

to payment in full plus interest. (ECF No. 90 at 1.)

27
28

Defendant responds agreeing the parties reached a settlement, stating Defendant timely
paid Plaintiff, and arguing Plaintiff is not entitled to any further payment. (ECF No. 91 at 1–2.)
1

1

Defendant attaches a copy of the settlement agreement as well as a copy of Plaintiff’s

2

statement of inmate trust account. (ECF No. 91-1 at 4–7; ECF No. 91-2 at 4–5.) The settlement

3

agreement shows the parties agreed to a settlement amount of $7,000, payment to be made by

4

Defendant to Plaintiff within 180 days of Plaintiff retuning the signed settlement agreement to

5

Defendant. (ECF No. 91-1 ¶¶ 2 & 4.) Plaintiff also agreed he understood that amounts he owed,

6

such as fines, restitution, and administrative fees, “will be deducted from the settlement amount

7

and paid on Plaintiff’s behalf as required by Penal Code section 2085.5.” (ECF No. 91-1 ¶ 2.)

8

Plaintiff signed the settlement agreement on May 23, 2016. (ECF No. 91-1 at 7.)

9

Plaintiff’s statement of inmate trust account shows a payment on September 26, 2016, to

10

Plaintiff’s account of $6,662.95, the $7,000 settlement payment minus a 5% administrative fee of

11

$337.05 pursuant to Penal Code section 2085.5. (ECF No. 91-2 at 4–5.) The following

12

transactions show payments from Plaintiff’s account, on the same day, of $4,000 for restitution in

13

“Case No. BA316 l 58,” of $1,130.23 for a direct order payment in “Case No. BA164597,” of $20

14

for restitution in an unspecified case, and $1,512.72 toward restitution of $1,800.00 in “Case No.

15

MA065868.”

16
17
18
19
20

Defendant has shown it paid Plaintiff the amount due, in the timeframe agreed, and
dispersed the funds as required. Plaintiff has not contradicted this.
Accordingly, the Court hereby DENIES Plaintiff’s motion to enforce settlement
agreement (ECF No. 90).
IT IS SO ORDERED.

21
22

Dated: August 24, 2017

23
24
Troy L. Nunley
United States District Judge

25
26
27
28
2