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)

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