Monroy v. Walmart Inc.

Filing 23

ORDER of the Honorable Judge Richard F. Boulware, II on 9/29/2024.IT IS ORDERED that Defendant's Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement [ECF No. 18] is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion Allowing Counsel for Plai ntiff Authorization to Sign Release [ECF No. 21] is GRANTED. Plaintiff's counsel is directed to sign the release by October 4, 2024. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that counsel for Plaintiff shall send Ms. Monroy a copy of this Order.Signed by Judge Richard F. Boulware, II on 9/29/2024.

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

6

***

7

CHAUNTAL MONROY,

8
9
10
11

Case No. 2:22-cv-01638-RFB-NJK

Plaintiff,

ORDER

v.
WAL-MART INC.,
Defendant.

12
13

Before the Court is Defendant’s Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement (ECF No. 18),

14

filed on September 1, 2023, and Plaintiff’s Motion to Allow Counsel for Plaintiff Authorization to

15

Sign Release on Plaintiff’s Behalf, submitted on August 1, 2024 (ECF No. 21). For the reasons

16

discussed below, the Court grants both motions.

17

On July 13, 2023, the Court granted Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Litigation with

18

Prejudice in light of a settlement agreement. ECF No. 17. Defendant submitted the instant motion

19

to enforce on September 1, 2023, stating that Defendants had attempted to obtain the executed

20

Release from Plaintiff, but were unsuccessful. ECF No. 18. Counsel for Plaintiff filed a non-

21

opposition to the motion on March 25, 2024, stating inter alia that Plaintiff agreed to the

22

settlement, did not sign the Release Defendants requested, and was unable to be contacted by

23

counsel. ECF No. 19. On August 1, 2024, counsel for Plaintiff filed the instant motion for

24

authorization to sign release on Plaintiff’s behalf. ECF No. 21.

25

It is “well established” that a trial court has the inherent power “to summarily enforce on

26

motion a settlement agreement entered into by the litigants while the litigation is pending before

27

it.” In re City Equities Anaheim, Ltd., 22 F.3d 954, 957 (9th Cir. 1995). The court’s equitable

28

power to summarily enforce a settlement agreement derives from the nature of the relief sought.

1

See Adams v. Johns-Manville Corp., 876 F.2d 702, 709 (9th Cir. 1989). However, a district court

2

may not exercise its equitable powers to summarily enforce a settlement “where material facts are

3

in dispute.” In re City Equities Anaheim, 22 F.3d at 958. A court may enforce a settlement

4

agreement through award of damages or through decree of specific performance and “[a]n action

5

for specific performance without a claim for damages is purely equitable.” Adams, 876 F.2d at

6

709. Enforcing a settlement agreement is interpreted as an action to enforce a contract. See

7

Knudsen v. Comm’r, 793 F.3d 1030, 1035 (9th Cir. 2015) (citing Jeff D. v. Andrus, 899 F.2d 753,

8

759 (9th Cir. 1989)). A contract’s construction and enforcement are governed by principles of state

9

contract law. See O’Neil v. Bunge Corp., 365 F.3d 820, 822 (9th Cir. 2004). This is true even if

10

the underlying cause of action is federal. See In re Beverly Hills Bancorp, 649 F.2d 1329, 1332

11

(9th Cir. 1981).

12

The Court now looks to the relevant Nevada contract law as it relates to a settlement

13

agreement. The Nevada Supreme Court has outlined that a valid and enforceable settlement

14

agreement requires “an offer and acceptance, meeting of the minds, and consideration.” May v.

15

Anderson, 119 P.3d 1254, 1257 (Nev. 2005). “A meeting of the minds exists when the parties have

16

agreed upon the contract’s essential terms.” Certified Fire Protection, Inc. v. Precision Constr.,

17

Inc., 283 P.3d 250, 254 (Nev. 2012). Which terms are essential “depends on the agreement and its

18

context and also on the subsequent conduct of the parties, including the dispute which arises and

19

the remedy sought.” Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 131 cmt. g (1981). Consideration

20

requires something that is “bargained for and given in exchange for an act or promise.” Zhang v.

21

Eighth Judicial Dist. Ct., 103 P.3d 20, 24 n.22 (Nev. 2004). In order to enforce a settlement

22

agreement in Nevada, “a court must be able to ascertain what is required of the respective parties.”

23

May, 119 P3.d at 1259. Applicable here, the terms of a release are material to any settlement

24

agreement. Id. at 1257-58. The Nevada Supreme Court has found that “release terms are not a

25

mere formality,” but “an important reason why a party enters into a settlement agreement.” Id.

26

The Court now considers Defendant’s motion to enforce the settlement agreement. The

27

Court will enforce the agreement. Here, Defendant requests the Court to order a decree of specific

28

performance for Plaintiff to execute the Release. There are no material facts in dispute. As recorded

-2-