Emir Sehic v. William Van Anderson
This text of 668 F. App'x 271 (Emir Sehic v. William Van Anderson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
MEMORANDUM **
Emir Sehic appeals the district court’s order dismissing his action and denying his motion to withdraw from an oral settlement agreement. We review the district court’s decision to enforce the settlement agreement for an abuse of discretion, Wilcox v. Arpaio, 753 F.3d 872, 875 (9th Cir. 2014), and we affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion by enforcing the terms of the oral settlement agreement the parties reached on May 24, 2013. The agreement was complete and uncomplicated, and both parties acknowledged their agreement to the terms on the record. After reaching the agreement, the parties came “into open court and announced that there was a settlement. The settlement contained agreement as to all material terms, which terms were put on the record.” Doi v. Halekulani Corp., 276 F.3d 1131, 1137-39 (9th Cir. 2002) (enforcing a similar oral agreement made of record in open court). There was no need to hold an evidentiary hearing to determine if there was a complete agreement or meeting of the minds, because the parties had already acknowledged as much *272 in open court. See id. 1
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
. The district court also retained jurisdiction to enforce the terms of the parties’ agreement, and any disputes about ongoing compliance with the agreement may be directed to that court.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
668 F. App'x 271, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/emir-sehic-v-william-van-anderson-ca9-2016.