Pacific International Grout Co v. Zinkova

Filing 59

ORDER ON CONSOLIDATED 56 Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement and for Dismissal. IT IS ORDERED that this action and all claims asserted herein are DISMISSED with prejudice and without costs to any party. In the event that the settlement is not perfected, any party may move to reopen the case, provided that such motion is filed within thirty (30) days of the date of this order, by Judge Marsha J. Pechman.(MD)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 8 9 10 PACIFIC INTERNATIONAL GROUT CO, 11 Plaintiff, 12 v. CASE NO. C12-778-MJP ORDER ON CONSOLIDATED MOTION TO ENFORCE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND FOR DISMISSAL 13 ANNA VLADIMIROVNA ZINKOVA, 14 Defendant. 15 16 This matter comes before the Court on the parties’ consolidated motion for enforcement 17 of a settlement agreement and dismissal. (Dkt. No. 56.) Having reviewed the motion and all 18 related papers, the Court GRANTS in-part and DENIES in-part the motion. The Court finds the 19 December 2012 hand-written-document is an enforceable settlement agreement. But resolution 20 21 of any disagreement about the settlement’s terms is reserved for Hon. Judge Learned (ret.) and not by this Court. Because there appears to be no issue for the Court to resolve, the parties’ 22 claims are DISMISSED. 23 // 24 ORDER ON CONSOLIDATED MOTION TO ENFORCE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND FOR DISMISSAL- 1 1 Background 2 This case involves Anna Zinkova’s employment with PIGCO and allegations of 3 embezzlement and sexual harassment. 4 The parties mediated their claims before Judge Kathleen Learned (Ret.) in December 5 2012. At the end of mediation, the parties hand-wrote their agreement settling the case 6 (“December Agreement”). Zinkova’s counsel added a provision stating “Hon. Judge Learned 7 (Ret.) shall resolve any disputes regarding the terms of this settlement.” (Dkt. No. 57-1 at 3.) 8 Both attorneys initialed next this provision to indicate their consent. (Id.) 9 The present dispute emerged after the December mediation, as the parties attempted to 10 formalized the agreement by executing a Final Agreement. (Dkt. 56 at 3, 7.) With the assistance 11 of Judge Learned, the parties resolved their disagreements over all but two terms. (Id.) The first 12 terms relates to a mutual non-disparagement and the second to resolution of disagreements and 13 breach. (Id. at 8.) 14 Analysis 15 Trial courts may “summarily enforce ... a settlement agreement entered into by the 16 litigants” while the litigation is pending. In re City Equities Anaheim, Ltd., 22 F.3d 954, 957 (9th 17 Cir. 1994). In determining whether to enforce a settlement, a court applies local contract law18 here, Washington’s. Jeff D. v. Andrus, 899 F.2d 753, 759 (9th Cir. 1989). Washington follows 19 “the objective manifestation theory of contracts,” where a court “attempt[s] to determine the 20 parties' intent by focusing on the objective manifestation of the agreement, rather than on the 21 unexpressed subjective intent of the parties.” Hearst Commc'ns, Inc. v. Seattle Times Co., 154 22 Wn.2d 493, 504 (2005). Washington follows the “context rule,” whereby extrinsic evidence may 23 be used “to determine the meaning of specific words and terms used” but not to “show an 24 ORDER ON CONSOLIDATED MOTION TO ENFORCE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND FOR DISMISSAL- 2 1 intention independent of the instrument” or to “vary, contradict, or modify the written word.” Id. 2 (emphasis in original). Further, a contract is binding “when the intention of the parties is plain 3 and the terms of the contract are agreed upon even if one or both parties contemplated later 4 execution of a writing.” Kruger v. Credit Int'l Corp., No. 10–cv–1374, 2012 WL 1534023, at *2 5 (W.D.Wash. Apr. 30, 2012) (citing Veith v. Xterra Wetsuits, LLC, 144 Wn. App. 362, 366 6 (2008)). 7 Applying these principals, the Court finds the parties settled this case in December 2012 8 and executed a written settlement agreement. (Dkt. No. 57-1.) The full text of the December 9 Agreement is not before this Court, but the parties agree the settlement included consideration, 10 dismissal of the pending claims, and addressed the pending bankruptcy. (Dkt. No. 56 at 2, 8, 11.) 11 Although the parties jointly move to “enforce” a settlement agreement, what they really 12 seek is a determination as to what terms were included in that December Agreement and who 13 gets to decide that dispute. As described above, two terms are in contest. The Court agrees with 14 PIGCO that any dispute regarding the terms must be resolved by the Judge Learned (ret.), as 15 specified in the plain language of the December Agreement. Whether the parties had a meeting 16 of the minds as to those additional terms, thus making them implicitly part of the December 17 Agreement, is a decision for Judge Learned (ret.) and not this Court. 18 19 Conclusion Because the parties settled their claims, IT IS ORDERED that this action and all claims 20 asserted herein are DISMISSED with prejudice and without costs to any party. In the event that 21 the settlement is not perfected, any party may move to reopen the case, provided that such 22 motion is filed within thirty (30) days of the date of this order. Any trial date and pretrial dates 23 24 ORDER ON CONSOLIDATED MOTION TO ENFORCE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND FOR DISMISSAL- 3 1 previously set are hereby VACATED. The clerk is ordered to provide copies of this order to all 2 counsel. 3 Dated this 29th day of May, 2013. A 4 5 Marsha J. Pechman Chief United States District Judge 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 ORDER ON CONSOLIDATED MOTION TO ENFORCE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND FOR DISMISSAL- 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?