Espina v. Department of Veterans Affairs, West Consolidated Patient Account Center

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: March 18, 2025
• Docket: 2:23-cv-02539
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RAUL ANG ESPINA, No. 2:23-cv-02539-JAM-JDP 12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO ENFORCE SETTLEMENT 13 v. AGREEMENT 14 DEPARTMENT OF VETERAN AFFAIRS, WEST CONSOLIDATED 15 PATIENT ACCOUNT CENTER; and DOES 1 THROUGH 100, 16 inclusive, 17 Defendants. 18 19 Before the Court is Department of Veteran Affair’s (“the 20 Department”) motion to enforce the settlement agreement. See 21 Mot., ECF No. 31. Raul Ang Espina (“Plaintiff”) does not oppose 22 the Department’s motion. See Statement of Non-Opposition, ECF 23 No. 33. For the following reasons, the Department’s motion is 24 GRANTED.1 25 /// 26

27 1This motion was determined to be suitable for decision without oral argument. E.D. Cal. L.R. 230(g). The hearing was scheduled 28 for March 25, 2025. 1 I. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 2 Plaintiff filed a lawsuit bringing claims as to his 3 admonishment for poor work performance. See Compl., ECF No. 1; 4 FAC, ECF No. 7. On August 21, 2024, the parties participated in 5 a settlement conference before Magistrate Judge Jeremy D. 6 Peterson. See ECF No. 19. The parties reached a settlement 7 whereby Plaintiff’s admonishment would be removed from his 8 personnel file, a payment of $4,000 would be made to Plaintiff, 9 Plaintiff would waive the provisions of California Civil Code 10 Section 1542 except as to claims for unpaid overtime and/or other 11 overtime allegations based in the Fair Labor Standards Act, and 12 Plaintiff’s claims in the FAC would be dismissed with prejudice. 13 See Alyson Berg Decl., Ex. A 6:3-7:8. When Judge Peterson asked 14 Plaintiff if he agreed to these terms, Plaintiff replied “Yes.” 15 Id. 7:19-21. 16 After the parties orally agreed to settle before Magistrate 17 Judge Peterson, Plaintiff declined to sign the settlement 18 agreement. See Berg Decl. ¶ 4. Following Plaintiff’s former 19 counsel’s withdrawal, see ECF No. 28, Plaintiff obtained new 20 counsel. See ECF No. 30. The Department has made several 21 efforts to contact Plaintiff’s new counsel but to no avail. See 22 Berg. Decl. ¶¶ 4-5. Accordingly, the Department brought this 23 motion. 24 II. OPINION 25 A. Legal Standard 26 Trial courts have an inherent power to enforce settlement 27 agreements. See In re City Equities Anaheim, Ltd., 22 F.3d 954, 28 957 (9th Cir. 1994). Before the Court can enforce a settlement 1 agreement, two requirements must be satisfied. First, the 2 agreement must be complete. Callie v. Near, 829 F.2d 888, 890 3 (9th Cir. 1987). Second, all parties must have directly agreed 4 to be bound by the terms of the settlement. Harrop v. W. 5 Airlines, Inc., 550 F.2d 1143, 1144–45 (9th Cir. 1977). This 6 second requirement is satisfied where a plaintiff participates in 7 a settlement conference, the material terms of the settlement 8 “were put on the record,” and “in response to direct questioning 9 by the court, [the plaintiff] stated that she agreed with the 10 terms.” See Doi v. Halekulani Corp., 276 F.3d 1131, 1137-38 (9th 11 Cir. 2002). In reaching this decision, the Ninth Circuit 12 recognized that an “oral agreement is binding on the parties, 13 particularly when the terms are memorialized into the record,” 14 “even if a party has a change of heart after she agreed to its 15 terms but before the terms are reduced to writing.” See id. 16 (internal citations omitted). 17 B. Analysis 18 Plaintiff went into open court, heard the material terms of 19 the settlement agreement stated on the record, and when asked by 20 Judge Peterson whether he agreed to these terms, Plaintiff said 21 “Yes.” See Alyson Berg Decl., Ex. A 6:3-7:21. Magistrate Judge 22 Peterson replied to Plaintiff’s agreement, “I will declare this 23 case to be settled.” Id. 7:22-23. The agreement was complete, 24 and all parties directly agreed to be bound by the terms of the 25 settlement. See Callie, 829 F.2d at 890; Harrop, 550 F.2d at 26 1144–45. 27 These facts are substantially similar to those underlying 28 Doi, where the plaintiff participated in a settlement conference eee ee ee EI III OEE SED IN

1 before a magistrate judge, the material terms of a settlement 2 agreed were placed on the record, and plaintiff assented to the 3 agreement by responding affirmatively when questioned by the 4 magistrate judge. See Doi, 276 F.3d at 1137-38. The Ninth 5 Circuit summarily rejected the plaintiff’s attempt to rescind her 6 settlement, and the court also held that it was proper for the 7 district court to enforce the settlement agreement without first 8 | holding an evidentiary hearing. See id. at 1138-39. 9 | Accordingly, just as the Ninth Circuit held in Doi, “Any question 10 as to [Plaintiff’s] intent to be bound was answered when [he] 11 appeared in open court, listened to the terms of the agreement 12 placed on the record, and when pressed as to whether [he] agreed 13 with the terms, said [‘Yes.’]” See id. at 1138. Plaintiff is 14 bound by the terms of the settlement agreement reached in the 15 settlement conference before Magistrate Judge Peterson. 16 TILT. ORDER 17 For the reasons set forth above, the Court GRANTS the 18 Department’s motion and DISMISSES WITH PREJUDICE all causes of 19 | action in the FAC. 20 Dated: March 17, 2025 21 cp, JOHN A. MENDEZ 23 SENIOR UNITED*STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 24 25 26 27 28