Carroll v. Industrial Supply Co. et al

Filing 23

ORDER that the 19 Order granting the 13 Motion to Enforce is affirmed. The Court finds the settlement agreement reached by the parties to be enforceable contract. The Clerk shall enter judgment for the Defendant in this case. The Clerk of Court is instructed to close this case. Signed by Judge Richard F. Boulware, II on 8/30/2018. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - SLD)

1
2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

3

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

4

***

5

CONNIE L. CARROLL,

6
7
8

Case No. 2:18-cv-00204-RFB-VCF

Plaintiff,
ORDER
v.
INDUSTRIAL SUPPLY CO. et al.,

9

Defendants.

10
11

This case is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Objection to the Magistrate Judge’s Order [ECF

12

No. 19] granting the Defendant’s Motion to Enforce [ECF No. 13]. The Court has reviewed the

13

record in this case and finds that the Magistrate Judge did not err in granting the Motion to Enforce.

14

The Plaintiff’s Objection is therefore denied.

15
16

I.

Legal Standard

17

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

18

recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). A party may file specific

19

written objections to the findings and recommendations of a magistrate judge. Id. § 636(b)(1);

20

Local Rule IB 3-2(a). When written objections have been filed, the district court is required to

21

“make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or

22

recommendations to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

23

It is well settled that a judge or magistrate’s participation in a settlement conference does

24

not generally create the appearance of partiality or otherwise justify recusal. See S.E.C. v. Sunwest

25

Mgmt., Inc., No. CIV. 09-6056-HO, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 33463, 2009 WL 1065053, at *2 (D.

26

Or. Apr. 20, 2009), aff’d sub nom. S.E.C. v. ING USA Annuity & Life Ins. Co., 360 F. App’x 826

27

(9th Cir. 2009) (“judge’s knowledge of facts gained from participating as a mediator in a settlement

28

proceeding is not ‘extrajudicial’”).

1

“A settlement is a contract, and its enforceability is governed by familiar principles of

2

contract law.” Knudsen v. C.I.R., 793 F.3d 1030, 1035 (9th Cir. 2015). “[T]he district court may

3

enforce only complete settlement agreements.” Callie v. Near, 829 F.2d 888, 890 (9th Cir. 1987).

4

“There [is] no need for the court to engage in factual inquiries to determine whether [the parties]

5

agreed to be bound by the terms of the agreement” when the parties assent to the terms of the

6

agreement on the Court’s record. Doi v. Halekulani Corp., 276 F.3d 1131, 1137-38 (9th Cir. 2002).

7
8

II.

Discussion

9

The Court has conducted a de novo review of the record in this case and finds that that the

10

Magistrate Judge did not err when he granted the Motion to Enforce. The Court adopts without

11

objection the recitation of facts and sequence of procedures enumerated in the Magistrate Judge’s

12

order of June 5, 2018 [ECF No. 9].

13

Plaintiff argues that the settlement should not be enforced because, she was not initially

14

scheduled to be a participant of the settlement conversations that led to the settlement agreement

15

on April 5, 2018. She argues that as she was not scheduled to be a participant and as no pre-

16

conference statement was offered, the agreement reached by the parties should be declared

17

unenforceable and void. Plaintiff further asserts that the Magistrate Judge should not have

18

participated in a mediation involving this case, since he was scheduled to participate in the

19

mediation of a related case no. 2:17-cv-1688-APG-VCF.

20

The Court finds Plaintiff’s arguments unpersuasive. First, Plaintiff does not assert or

21

provide a basis for this Court to find that the settlement agreement was not reached based upon the

22

mutual consent and consideration of the parties involved with the agreement. While Plaintiff has

23

subsequently identified her concerns with the mediation process, she does not argue that she did

24

not knowingly and voluntarily agree to the terms of the contract. She has not explained how the

25

addition of her case to the mediation discussions prevented her from being able to enter into a valid

26

contract.

27

Second, Plaintiff has not explained how the absence of a pre-mediation statement by the

28

parties to her case prevented them from validly entering into a contract. While the Local Rules

-2-

1

establish general procedures for the sequential progression of civil cases. Judges have the authority

2

to deviate from these general procedures as necessary and consistent with their ethical obligations.

3

See LR IA 1-4. Plaintiff had the opportunity to assent to the terms of the agreement or reject them.

4

She agreed to the terms of the settlement after having an opportunity to consider them.

5

Third, the Court finds that the Magistrate Judge was not required to recuse himself from

6

the proceedings. His cautionary statement about recusal did not establish that recusal was

7

necessary or warranted for purposes of reaching a global resolution of the two related cases. The

8

Court does not find that recusal was necessary, appropriate or required as to the mediation of the

9

two related cases.

10

Finally, the Court finds based upon the record that Plaintiff entered into a valid contract or

11

agreement to resolve this case. Any potential ‘regrets’ that she may have about having entered

12

into the agreement or its terms do not negate the fact that she voluntarily and knowingly entered

13

into a valid settlement agreement.

14

Accordingly,

15

IT IS ORDERED that the Order [ECF No. 19] granting the Motion to Enforce [ECF No.

16

13] is affirmed. The Court finds the settlement agreement reached by the parties to be an

17

enforceable contract.

18
19

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk shall enter judgment for the Defendant in
this case.

The Clerk of Court is instructed to close this case.

20
21
22

DATED: August 30, 2018.

23
____________________________
RICHARD F. BOULWARE, II
United States District Judge

24
25
26
27
28

-3-