Dicey v. Rayner, et al

Filing 55

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 5/23/2018 GRANTING 50 Motion for Enforcement of Settlement Agreement and DENYING Defendants' Motion for Sanctions. Plaintiff to deliver to defendants all documents necessary to effec tuate all the terms of settlement in these cases within 30 days. Defendants to file a stipulation of dismissal within 60 days unless Plaintiff fails to provide defendants with a signed stipulation of dismissal, in which case defendants to inform the court. (Henshaw, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

BERLAN LYNELL DICEY,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

No. 2:15-cv-00927 TLN CKD P

v.
C. RAYNER, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
17

BERLAN LYNELL DICEY

18

Plaintiff,

19
20

No. 2:14-cv-2661 TLN CKD P

v.
T. COBB, et al.,
ORDER

21

Defendants.

22
On June 19, 2017, a settlement conference was held in these 42 U.S.C. §1983 actions and

23
24

a settlement agreement was reached. The terms of the agreement were recited on the record: in

25

exchange for plaintiff agreeing to dismiss these actions with prejudice, the remaining defendants

26

agree to pay plaintiff $6,000. The parties were ordered to file dispositional documents within 30

27

days. A motion by defendants in both actions to enforce the settlement agreement is before the

28

court.
1

1

A district court has the inherent power to enforce a complete settlement agreement entered

2

into while the litigation is pending before it. In re City of Equities Anaheim, Ltd., 22 F.3d 954,

3

957 (9th Cir. 1995); Callie v. Near, 829 F.2d 888, 890 (9th Cir. 1987). This enforcement power

4

extends to oral agreements. Doi v. Halekulani Corp., 276 F.3d 1131, 1138 (9th Cir. 2002). The

5

moving party has the burden of demonstrating that the parties formed a legally enforceable

6

settlement agreement. In re Andreyev, 313 B.R. 302, 305 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 2004) (citing 15A Am.

7

Jur. 2d Compromise and Settlement § 57 (2000)).

8
9

“The construction and enforcement of settlement agreements are governed by principles
of local law which apply to interpretation of contracts generally.” Jeff D. v. Andrus, 899 F.2d

10

753, 759 (9th. Cir. 1989). Therefore, even though the underlying cause of action presented in this

11

litigation is based upon a federal statute, this court applies California law regarding the formation

12

and interpretation of contracts in determining whether a legally enforceable settlement agreement

13

was reached. United Commercial Ins. Serv., Inc. v. Paymaster Corp., 962 F.2d 853, 856 (9th Cir.

14

1992); see also Harrop v. West. Airlines, Inc., 550 F.2d 1143, 1145 (9th Cir. 1977) (applying

15

California law).

16

In California, oral settlement agreements made before the court and oral contracts are

17

enforceable. Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 664.6; Cal. Civ. Code § 1622. “The essential elements of a

18

contract are: [1] parties capable of contracting; [2] the parties’ consent; [3] a lawful object; and

19

[4] sufficient cause or consideration.” Lopez v. Charles Schwab & Co., Inc., 13 Cal. Rptr. 3d

20

544, 548 (Cal. Ct. App. 2004) (citing Cal. Civ. Code § 1550). “Mutual assent usually is

21

manifested by an offer communicated to the offeree and an acceptance communicated to the

22

offeror.” Id. (citing Cal. Civ. Code § 1565). The existence of mutual consent is determined by

23

objective criteria; the “parties’ outward manifestations must show that the parties all agreed ‘upon

24

the same thing in the same sense.’” Weddington Prod., Inc., v. Flick, 71 Cal. Rptr. 2d 265, 277

25

(Cal. Ct. App. 1998) (quoting Cal. Civ. Code § 1580).

26

A review of the transcript of the settlement conference indicates that all of the factors

27

identified above for the creation of an enforceable oral settlement agreement have been met and

28

plaintiff generally does not dispute this. Instead, he asserts for the second time that he should be
2

1

permitted to back out of the agreement because, at the settlement conference, the magistrate judge

2

incorrectly informed plaintiff that a particular prisoner disciplinary finding cannot be expunged

3

due to the Supreme Court’s decision in Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994). As the court

4

has already indicated in its August 28, 2017 order, there is no evidence that the presiding

5

magistrate judge misinformed plaintiff, and plaintiff’s argument concerning the expungement of

6

the prisoner disciplinary finding at issue does not provide any basis to set aside the agreement.
Accordingly, defendants’ motion for enforcement of the settlement agreement will be

7
8

granted. As requested by defendants, the court will order plaintiff to deliver to the defendants all

9

documents necessary to effectuate all of the terms of settlement within 30 days. If plaintiff fails

10

to do so, the court will recommend that these actions be dismissed with prejudice for plaintiff’s

11

failure to follow court orders under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). Defendants will be

12

ordered to file a stipulation of dismissal within 60 days. If plaintiff fails to provide defendants

13

with a signed stipulation of dismissal, and if defendants have complied with all of the terms of the

14

settlement agreement with which they could comply, defendants shall so inform the court and the

15

court will recommend dismissal with prejudice as indicated above.

16

Finally, defendants ask the plaintiff be sanctioned in an amount they consider equal to the

17

cost of the preparation of their motion for enforcement of the settlement agreement. At this point,

18

plaintiff has only opposed enforcement of the agreement which the court does not view as

19

amounting to “willful disobedience of a court order” as suggested by defendants. Plaintiff has

20

made his arguments concerning the expungement of a prison disciplinary finding and those

21

arguments have been rejected. Plaintiff is warned that further reliance on those arguments as a

22

basis for not performing the terms required under the settlement agreement, or any other bad faith

23

reason for failing to perform, will result in monetary sanctions along with dismissal of these

24

actions with prejudice.

25

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

26

1. Defendants’ October 5, 2017 motion for enforcement of the settlement agreement

27

reached on June 19, 2017 is granted.

28

////
3

1
2
3

2. Plaintiff shall deliver to defendants all documents necessary to effectuate all of the
terms of settlement in these cases within 30 days.
3. Defendants shall file a stipulation of dismissal within 60 days unless plaintiff fails to

4

provide defendants with a signed stipulation of dismissal, in which case defendants shall so

5

inform the court.

6
7

4. Defendants’ motion for sanctions is denied.
Dated: May 23, 2018

_____________________________________
CAROLYN K. DELANEY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

8
9
10
11
12
13

1
dice0927.mfe

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4