Cathy v. Palma

• Court: District Court, S.D. California
• Decided: April 21, 2025
• Docket: 3:22-cv-01565
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CHARLES RAY CATHY, Case No.: 22cv1565-LL-JLB

12 Plaintiff, ORDER: 13 v. (1) GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO ENFORCE 14 PALMA, et al., SETTLEMENT 15 Defendants. [ECF No. 73];

16 (2) DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 17 MOTION TO RECONSIDER SETTLEMENT 18 [ECF No. 76] 19 20 Before the Court is Defendants’ Motion to Enforce Settlement (“Motion”). ECF No. 21 73 (“Mot.”). Specifically, Defendants “move the Court for an order enforcing the parties’ 22 settlement agreement entered into on the record on August 27, 2024, and dismissing 23 Plaintiff’s Complaint & Supplemental Complaint, and all claims as to all Defendants, with 24 prejudice.” Id. at 2. Plaintiff filed a document styled “Motion to Reconsider Mediation 25 Hearing Settlement,” which the Court construes as an opposition to Defendants’ Motion. 26 ECF No. 76 (“Opposition” or “Oppo.”). Finally, Defendants filed a Reply. ECF No. 77 27 (“Reply”). The Court finds this matter suitable for determination on the papers and without 28 oral argument pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 78(b) and Civil Local Rule 1 7.1.d.1. Upon review of the parties’ submissions and the applicable law, the Court 2 GRANTS Defendants’ Motion and DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion to Reconsider Mediation 3 Hearing Settlement. 4 I. BACKGROUND 5 On October 7, 2022, Plaintiff Charles Ray Cathy, incarcerated at Calipatria State 6 Prison and proceeding pro se, initiated this matter by filing a civil rights complaint pursuant 7 to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. ECF No. 1. Plaintiff’s complaint and supplemental complaint allege 8 First Amendment retaliation and Eighth Amendment excessive force claims against 9 various correctional officers. ECF Nos. 1, 13. 10 On August 27, 2024, the parties participated in a mandatory settlement conference 11 (“MSC”) before Magistrate Judge Burkhardt, and the case settled on the record. ECF 12 No. 59. According to the transcript of the MSC, Defendants will pay Plaintiff $2,750; each 13 party will bear their own costs and fees; the case will be dismissed by Plaintiff with 14 prejudice; and Plaintiff will release all claims. Mot. at 12. 15 Defense counsel attests that on August 29, 2024, he mailed to Plaintiff a settlement 16 agreement and release, a joint motion to dismiss with prejudice, a payee data form, and an 17 addressed return envelope with postage. ECF No. 73-1, Declaration of Nicholas P. Banegas 18 (“Banegas Decl.”), ¶ 7. Defense counsel further attests that he has not received the signed 19 documents, and Plaintiff declined defense counsel’s request to schedule a phone call to 20 discuss the settlement documents. Id. ¶¶ 8–9; Mot. at 20–21. 21 On December 17, 2024, Defendants filed a motion to enforce settlement. ECF 22 No. 70. On December 19, 2024, the Court issued a briefing schedule setting deadlines for 23 Plaintiff to file an opposition to the motion and Defendants to file a reply. ECF No. 71. 24 Also on December 19, 2024, Defendants withdrew their motion to enforce settlement 25 because it was missing a signature and filed the instant Motion with the signature. 26 ECF Nos. 72, 73. 27 / / / 28 / / / 1 II. LEGAL STANDARD 2 A district court has inherent enforcement power, which includes “the power to 3 summarily enforce on motion a settlement agreement entered into by the litigants while the 4 litigation is pending before it.” In re City Equities Anaheim, Ltd., 22 F.3d 954, 957 5 (9th Cir. 1994) (citations omitted). Enforcement upon motion is inappropriate “where 6 material facts concerning the existence or terms of a settlement were in dispute or where a 7 settlement agreement was apparently procured by fraud.” Id. (citations omitted). 8 III. DISCUSSION 9 Defendants contend that Plaintiff knowingly and voluntarily agreed, on the record, 10 to settle his lawsuit and dismiss his claims. Mot. at 5. 11 Plaintiff argues that “there is a dispute over the terms of the settlement agreement.” 12 Oppo. at 76. He states that he is hearing impaired “and could not comprehend the spoken 13 language” and “did not understand its terms, ‘mediation hearing.’”1 Id. 14 The Court finds Plaintiff knowingly and voluntarily agreed to the settlement terms 15 made on the record in court. A review of the transcript of the MSC makes this clear. Judge 16 Burkhardt prefaced the recitation of the terms by stating that “even if the written settlement 17 agreement is not signed, this settlement will nonetheless be binding on all parties based on 18 it being placed on the record today.” Mot. at 12. After reciting the settlement terms, Judge 19 Burkhardt asked Plaintiff if she had accurately set forth the terms of the settlement and if 20 he understood them. Id. at 12–13. Plaintiff replied, “Yes, your Honor.” Id. at 13. Judge 21

22 23 1 Plaintiff requests a video conference and appointment of counsel due to his disability. Oppo. at 1. Plaintiff has clearly articulated his opposition to Defendants’ Motion. In light 24 of the transcript, the Court finds his likelihood of success on the merits is slim. The Court 25 thus denies Plaintiff’s request for appointment of counsel and declines to hold a video conference. See Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009) (finding a court has 26 discretion in “exceptional circumstances” under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1) to request an 27 attorney to represent a person unable to afford counsel, which requires consideration of the person’s likelihood of success on the merits and ability to articulate his claims in light of 28 | || Burkhardt also asked Plaintiff if he agreed to be bound by the terms of the settlement, as 2 ||she stated them on the record, to which he replied, “I do, your Honor.” Jd. at 14. In fact, 3 || Plaintiff's replies to all of Judge Burkhardt’s questions were responsive and coherent. See 4 at 13-14. He did not indicate that he had any difficulty understanding or hearing 5 || anything that was spoken, despite being given ample opportunity to do so by the Court. 6 The Court finds the parties made a binding settlement agreement after they reached 7 settlement in off-the-record discussions with Judge Burkhardt, then went on the record 8 ||to announce the settlement, record all material terms, and confirm the parties’ agreement. 9 ||See Ryan vy. Garcia, 27 Cal. App. 4th 1006, 1009 (1994) (noting that oral settlement 10 ||agreements are enforceable in California.). Upon direct questioning by Judge Burkhardt, 11 Plaintiff agreed to the terms. The Court thus finds the parties entered into a valid and 12 || binding settlement agreement, and Plaintiff knowingly and voluntarily agreed to its terms. 13 Doi v. Halekulani Corp., 276 F.3d 1131, 1137-38 (9th Cir. 2002) (finding a district 14 || court did not abuse its discretion in enforcing a binding settlement agreement made in open 15 || court when the terms were put on the record and the parties agreed to the terms in response 16 || to direct questioning). Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ Motion. 17 || IV. CONCLUSION 18 As set forth above, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ Motion to Enforce Settlement 19 DENIES Plaintiffs Motion to Reconsider Settlement. The material terms of the 20 settlement agreement set forth on the record on August 27, 2024 shall be enforced. ECF 21 73 at 11-15. Pursuant to the settlement agreement, this case is DISMISSED WITH 22 || PREJUDICE. The Clerk of Court shall close this case. 23 IT IS SO ORDERED. 24 ||Dated: April 21, 2025 NO 25 DE 26 Honorable Linda Lopez 57 United States District Judge 28