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-
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?