Lee v. City of Sacramento

Filing 74

ORDER signed by District Judge John A. Mendez on 9/9/2020 ADOPTING 66 Findings and Recommendations; GRANTING 54 Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement; DENYING 57 Motion to Set Aside Settlement Agreement; DIRECTING defendant to pay plaintiff $8,750 within 14 days of the date of service of this order; DENYING defendant's request for attorney's fees without prejudice to filing a properly-supported motion for attorneys' fees; and DISMISSING this action with prejudice pursuant to the terms of the parties' settlement agreement. CASE CLOSED. (Coll, A)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 IVAN S. LEE, 12 Plaintiff, 13 14 No. 2:17-cv-118-JAM-EFB PS v. ORDER CITY OF SACRAMENTO, 15 Defendant. 16 On July 29, 2020, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein which 17 18 were served on the parties and which contained notice that any objections to the findings and 19 recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. Plaintiff filed objections on August 11, 20 2020, and they were considered by the undersigned. This court reviews de novo those portions of the proposed findings of fact to which 21 22 objection has been made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Commodore 23 Business Machines, 656 F.2d 1309, 1313 (9th Cir. 1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 920 (1982). As 24 to any portion of the proposed findings of fact to which no objection has been made, the court 25 assumes its correctness and decides the motions on the applicable law. See Orand v. United 26 States, 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are 27 reviewed de novo. See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified Sch. Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983). 28 ///// 1 1 The court has reviewed the applicable legal standards and, good cause appearing, 2 concludes that it is appropriate to adopt the proposed Findings and Recommendations in full. 3 Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that: 4 1. The proposed Findings and Recommendations filed July 29, 2020, are adopted; 5 2. Defendant’s motion to enforce the settlement agreement (ECF No. 54) is granted; 6 3. Plaintiff’s motion to set aside the settlement agreement (ECF No. 57) is denied; 7 4. Defendant is directed to pay plaintiff $8,750 within 14 days of the date of service of 8 this order; 9 5. Defendant’s request for attorney’s fees is denied without prejudice to filing a properly- 10 supported motion for attorneys’ fees; and 11 6. This action is dismissed with prejudice pursuant to the terms of the parties’ settlement 12 agreement. 13 14 15 16 DATED: September 9, 2020 /s/ John A. Mendez____________ _____ UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 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?