Johnson v. Ferber et al
Filing
30
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION that 15 Motion to Enforce Settlement be granted and that this case be closed. Objections to R&R due by 7/13/2017. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe on 6/28/17. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MMM)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
9
10
LAUSTEVEION JOHNSON,
11
Plaintiff(s),
12
vs.
13
JAMES FERBER, et al.,
14
Defendant(s).
15
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. 2:16-cv-00366-RFB-NJK
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
(Docket No. 15)
16
Pending before the Court is Defendants’ motion to enforce settlement. Docket No. 15. Plaintiff
17
filed a response in opposition, and Defendants filed a reply. Docket Nos. 18, 20. The Court held an
18
evidentiary hearing on June 13, 2017. Docket No. 25. As ordered at that hearing, Defendants also filed
19
under seal medical records. Docket No. 28. For the reasons discussed below, the undersigned
20
RECOMMENDS that the motion to enforce settlement be granted and that this case be closed.
21
I.
STANDARDS
22
Federal courts have inherent authority to enforce settlement agreements in pending cases. See,
23
e.g., in re City Equities Anaheim, Ltd., 22 F.3d 954, 958 (9th Cir. 1994). Even when the case involves
24
a federal cause of action, the construction and enforcement of settlement agreements are governed by
25
state law. Jones v. McDaniel, 717 F.3d 1062, 1067 (9th Cir. 2013). Nevada law requires an offer and
26
acceptance, meeting of the minds, and consideration to constitute an enforceable contract. May v.
27
Anderson, 121 Nev. 668, 672 (2005). When there are disputed issues of fact, the Court is required to
28
hold an evidentiary hearing. Callie v. Near, 829 F.2d 888, 890 (9th Cir. 1987).
1
II.
ANALYSIS
2
The pending motion presents a straightforward factual dispute. Plaintiff sent a demand letter to
3
Defendants’ counsel offering to settle this case in exchange for dismissal of the notice of charges in this
4
case and $1,000. Def. Ex. A (“Offer Letter”). That letter is dated November 22, 2016, postmarked
5
November 28, 2016, and has a received stamp from the Attorney General’s Office of November 30,
6
2016. Id. Defendants responded through their counsel with their own letter accepting the settlement.
7
Def. Ex. B (“Acceptance Letter”). That letter is dated December 13, 2016. Neither party disputes the
8
existence or authenticity of either of these letters.
9
The dispute before the Court turns primarily on whether Plaintiff amended his settlement offer
10
by sending an additional letter prior to Defendants’ acceptance. In particular, Plaintiff contends that he
11
amended the terms of the settlement offer as presented in the Offer Letter by sending another letter on
12
November 24, 2016.1 See Pla. Ex. 2 (“Amendment Letter”). Defendants argue the Amendment Letter
13
was drafted after-the-fact and was never mailed. Based on the testimony and documentary evidence
14
presented, the undersigned concludes that Defendant did not in fact modify the terms of his initial
15
settlement offer as stated in the Offer Letter by mailing the Acceptance Letter or otherwise, and that
16
there was an offer and acceptance, and meeting of the minds, with respect to the initial settlement offer
17
made.
18
There are several considerations that support this finding. First, the evidence shows that the
19
Offer Letter was not mailed until November 28, 2016, despite being dated November 22, 2016. In
20
particular, the Offer Letter is postmarked November 28, 2016, which corresponds to the brass slip for
21
legal postage submitted by Plaintiff on that same date. See Def. Ex. A at 2; Def. Ex. G; see also Hearing
22
Rec. (June 13, 2017) at 10:32 - 10:41 a.m.2 As such, Plaintiff’s timeline of events does not make sense;
23
he represents that he amended his settlement offer through the Amendment Letter on November 24,
24
25
1
26
27
28
As discussed below, Plaintiff contends he mailed the letter on November 24, 2016, but it is dated
November 24, 2017.
2
As a transcript of the evidentiary hearing is not currently available, the undersigned will cite herein
to the audio recording of that hearing.
2
1
2016, which predates his actual mailing of the Offer Letter to Defendants’ counsel on November 28,
2
2016.
3
Second, upon receiving Defendants’ Acceptance Letter, Plaintiff did not indicate that it was
4
invalid because he had amended the terms of the settlement prior to acceptance. Instead, he provided
5
other reasons at that time for why an enforceable settlement agreement had not been reached. See Def.
6
Ex. D (letter postmarked December 20, 2016, indicating that the initial “offer is no longer on the table
7
because I’m no longer in desperate need of money”); Def. Ex. F (letter postmarked January 5, 2017,
8
indicating: “We only engaged in settlement negotiations. . . . We never reached any settlement
9
agreement. I never signed anything and you never signed anything”). Had Plaintiff amended the terms
10
of the settlement offer through the Amendment Letter prior to Defendants’ acceptance, one would expect
11
that he would have made that known at the time of these exchanges.
12
Third, Plaintiff contends that the Amendment Letter was sent on November 24, 2016, but it was
13
dated “11/24/17.” Pla. Ex. 2 (emphasis added). While Plaintiff contends that the wrong year is merely
14
a byproduct of a learning disability, see, e.g., Hearing Rec. (June 13, 2017) at 11:02 - 11:03 a.m.,3 the
15
mistaken year designation seems more likely to be a byproduct of the letter actually being written after-
16
the-fact in 2017 and a failure to pre-date the letter to 2016. Although this incorrect date standing alone
17
would not carry the day for Defendants, it does add further support to the other evidence in the record
18
that the Amendment Letter was not drafted or sent in November 2016.
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
As ordered by the Court, Defendants filed Plaintiff’s medical file under seal. Docket No. 28. While
that record shows some mental health issues, the undersigned is not persuaded by Plaintiff’s argument that
he did not mean what he stated in writing. See, e.g., Hearing Rec. (6/13/2017) at 10:47 a.m., 10:54 - 11:01
a.m. Especially given the evidence in record showing that Plaintiff is an able and successful litigant, see,
e.g., Def. Ex. A; see also Hearing Rec. (6/13/2017) at 10:47 - 10:49 a.m., the undersigned also does not find
that the terms of the settlement were offered in mistake or that the settlement is otherwise unenforceable
based on any mental limitations. Lastly, Plaintiff argues that Defendants themselves believed the Offer
Letter was incomplete and/or based on mistake because one of their letters asks Plaintiff to sign the enclosed
settlement agreement “[a]ssuming the draft agreement accurately reflects the terms of your offer.” Hearing
Rec. (6/13/2017) at 11:10 - 11:11 a.m.; Def. Ex. C. The undersigned does not similarly infer from this
boilerplate language that Defendants did not believe they were entering an enforceable agreement. To the
contrary, Defendants’ Acceptance Letter clearly identified the two terms of the settlement offer and
expressed no doubt that a settlement had been reached, Def. Ex. B, and their consistent position during the
ensuing weeks was that a settlement agreement had been reached, see Def. Ex. E.
3
1
Taken together, the evidence establishes that Plaintiff did not amend the terms of the settlement
2
offer by sending the Amendment Letter as he alleges in responding to the pending motion. The parties
3
reached a settlement agreement when Plaintiff sent Defendants the Offer Letter and Defendants accepted
4
the terms of settlement through the Acceptance Letter. As such, there was an enforceable settlement
5
contract that this case be dismissed in exchange for dismissal of the notice of charges in this case and
6
$1,000.
7
III.
8
9
10
11
12
CONCLUSION
For the reasons discussed above, the undersigned RECOMMENDS that the motion to enforce
settlement be granted and that this case be closed.
DATED: June 28, 2017
______________________________________
NANCY J. KOPPE
United States Magistrate Judge
13
14
NOTICE
15
Pursuant to Local Rule IB 3-2 any objection to this Report and Recommendation must be
16
in writing and filed with the Clerk of the Court within 14 days of service of this document. The
17
Supreme Court has held that the courts of appeal may determine that an appeal has been waived due
18
to the failure to file objections within the specified time. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 142 (1985).
19
This circuit has also held that (1) failure to file objections within the specified time and (2) failure to
20
properly address and brief the objectionable issues waives the right to appeal the District Court’s
21
order and/or appeal factual issues from the order of the District Court. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d
22
1153, 1157 (9th Cir. 1991); Britt v. Simi Valley United Sch. Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983).
23
24
25
26
27
28
4
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?