KMI Zeolite, Inc. v. United States Department of the Interior, et al.

Filing 175

ORDER. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that 162 Magistrate Judge Koppe's report and recommendation be, and the same hereby is, ADOPTED in its entirety. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that 153 Nye County's motion to enforce settlement be, and the same hereby is, GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Nye County be, and the same hereby is, DISMISSED with prejudice. Signed by Judge James C. Mahan on 6/26/2019. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - ADR)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

7

***

8

KMI ZEOLITE, INC. et al.,

9

Plaintiff(s),

10
11
12

Case No. 2:15-CV-2038 JCM (NJK)
ORDER

v.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE
INTERIOR, et al.,
Defendant(s).

13
14

Presently before the court is defendant Nye County’s motion to enforce settlement. (ECF

15
16
17

No. 153). Plaintiff ABC Recycling Industries, Inc. (“ABC”) and Robert Ford (collectively
“plaintiffs”) have filed a response (ECF No. 155), to which Nye County replied (ECF No. 156).
Also before the court is Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe’s report and recommendation.

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge

(ECF No. 162). Plaintiffs have not filed an objection and the time to do so has passed.
I.

FACTS
ABC initiated this quiet title action against Nye County and sixteen other defendants to

determine the rightful owner of three tracts of real property located in Nye County. (ECF No. 55).
In December 2018, plaintiffs and Nye County entered into a settlement agreement providing that
ABC file a motion to dismiss Nye County with prejudice upon the consummation of a road rightof-way easement on the property. (ECF No. 153).
On December 28, 2018, plaintiffs and Nye County recorded the easement. Id. However,
plaintiffs did not file a motion to dismiss Nye County with prejudice. Now, Nye County moves

1

to enforce the settlement agreement. Id. Magistrate Judge Koppe recommends granting Nye

2

County’s motion. (ECF No. 162).

3

II.

LEGAL STANDARD

4

This court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or

5

recommendations made by the magistrate.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Where a party timely objects

6

to a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, then the court is required to “make a de novo

7

determination of those portions of the [report and recommendation] to which objection is made.”

8

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

9

Where a party fails to object, however, the court is not required to conduct “any review at

10

all . . . of any issue that is not the subject of an objection.” Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149

11

(1985). Indeed, the Ninth Circuit has recognized that a district court is not required to review a

12

magistrate judge’s report and recommendation where no objections have been filed. See United

13

States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114 (9th Cir. 2003) (disregarding the standard of review

14

employed by the district court when reviewing a report and recommendation to which no

15

objections were made).

16

III.

17
18

DISCUSSION
Plaintiffs have not objected to the report and recommendation. Nevertheless, the court

engages in a de novo review to determine whether to adopt the magistrate judge’s findings.

19

Federal courts have inherent authority to enforce settlement agreements between parties in

20

pending litigation. In re City Equities Anaheim, Ltd., 22 F.3d 954, 957 (9th Cir. 1994). When

21

interpreting and enforcing settlement agreements, courts look to state law and corresponding

22

principles. Jones v. McDaniel, 717 F.3d 1062, 1067 (9th Cir. 2013). In Nevada, a settlement

23

agreement is an enforceable contract when there has been an offer and acceptance, meeting of the

24

minds, and consideration. May v. Anderson, 121 Nev. 668, 672 (Nev. 2005).

25

The parties have executed a complete, written settlement agreement and have agreed to

26

exchange adequate consideration. See (ECF No. 153). Therefore, the settlement agreement is an

27

enforceable contract.

28
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge

-2-

1

Nevada’s longstanding policy is to interpret and enforce contracts based on the written

2

language, reading words in their usual and ordinary meaning. Ellison, 993 P.2d at 1263; Traffic

3

Control Servs., Inc. v. United Rentals Nw., Inc., 87 P.3d 1054, 1059 (Nev. 2004). Section five of

4

the agreement provides:

5

7

Upon the consummation of the road right-of-way easement described herein, ABC
shall immediately dismiss with prejudice all claims and counter claims asserted in
the Consolidated Cases regarding consolidated case 2:15-cv-46-JCM-PAL (Quiet
Title Suit) against COUNTY, with each of the Parties to bear its own costs and
attorney’s fees, except as otherwise stated in this Agreement.

8

(ECF No. 153). Under this provision, once the parties record the road right-of-way easement,

9

ABC must file a motion to dismiss Nye County with prejudice. The remaining terms of the

10

agreement do not contain language limiting or providing exceptions to plaintiffs’ obligation. See

11

(ECF No. 153).

6

12

Because the parties have already recorded the easement, plaintiffs’ failure to file a motion

13

to dismiss Nye County constitutes a breach of contract. Therefore, the court will adopt the

14

magistrate judge’s recommendation and enforce the settlement agreement in accordance with its

15

terms.

16

IV.

CONCLUSION

17

Accordingly,

18

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that Magistrate Judge Koppe’s

19

report and recommendation (ECF No. 162) be, and the same hereby is, ADOPTED in its entirety.

20

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Nye County’s motion to enforce settlement (ECF NO.

21
22
23
24
25
26

153) be, and the same hereby is, GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Nye County be, and the same hereby is, DISMISSED
with prejudice.
DATED June 26, 2019.
__________________________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

27
28
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge

-3-