Bret Bailey v. Mount Diablo Unified School District

• Court: District Court, N.D. California
• Decided: October 28, 2025
• Docket: 3:24-cv-00188
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 BRET BAILEY, Case No. 24-cv-00188-CRB

9 Plaintiff,

ORDER ON OFFER OF 10 v. JUDGMENT

11 MOUNT DIABLO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, 12 Defendant. 13 Plaintiff Bret Bailey filed a notice of acceptance of an offer of judgment by 14 Defendant Mount Diablo Unified School District. Notice (dkt. 55). In the notice, Plaintiff 15 sought to take advantage of an ambiguity that the offered $20,000 sum was not inclusive of 16 fees and costs. Id. at 2. While the offer initially states that the sum was inclusive of fees 17 and costs, a later paragraph says that fees and costs would be “determined by the court.” 18 Offer (dkt. 55-1) at 2. Defendant disagrees with Plaintiff’s reading of the terms and 19 contends the offer was “expressly limited to the payment of the sum of $20,000, which 20 includes costs and attorneys’ fees.” Objection (dkt. 57) at 2. Plaintiff counters that 21 Defendant created the ambiguity and that it must be construed against them. Response 22 (dkt. 58) at 4. 23 The Ninth Circuit has “repeatedly emphasized that Rule 68 offers of judgment are 24 ‘analyzed in the same manner as any contract.’” Miller v. City of Portland, 868 F.3d 846, 25 851 (9th Cir. 2017) (quoting Erdman v. Cochise Cty., 926 F.2d 877, 880 (9th Cir. 1991)). 26 “When construing a contract, federal courts look to applicable state law.” Sloan v. Verily 27 Life Scis. LLC, No. 24-CV-07516-EMC (EMC), 2025 WL 2597393, at *5 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 1 || 8, 2025). Accordingly, this Court will apply California contract law. And under 2 || California law, there is “no contract until there has been a meeting of the minds on all 3 || material points.” Am. Emps. Grp., Inc. v. Emp. Dev. Dep’t, 154 Cal. App. 4th 836, 846 4 || (2007) (emphasis in original). “Mutual intent is determinative of contract formation 5 || because there is no contract unless the parties thereto assent, and they must assent to the 6 || same thing, in the same sense.” Id. (internal citation omitted). 7 The Court determines no valid contract was created from the Rule 68 offer because 8 || there was a lack of mutual assent. The Court identifies two ways to read the offer terms. 9 || First, the phrase “determined by the court” could be viewed as having the Court determine 10 || reasonable fees and costs within the $20,000 sum. And second, the differences in the 11 || paragraphs could functionally create two separate offers—one that caps at the $20,000 sum 12 || and one that is $20,000 plus fees and costs. Under either interpretation, Plaintiff did not 13 || agree to the same material terms that Defendant intended to offer. C 14 Accordingly, the parties are ordered to meet-and-confer to discuss whether another 15 || Rule 68 offer is warranted. In the interim, the Court will stay briefing on Defendant’s 16 || Motion for Summary Judgment (dkt. 53). 5 17 IT IS SO ORDERED. 18 Dated: October 28, 2025 L. K CHARLES R. BREYER 19 United States District Judge 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28