Joe Hand Promotions Incorporated v. RPRGA Properties LLC

• Court: District Court, D. Arizona
• Decided: January 27, 2025
• Docket: 2:24-cv-01039
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

9 Joe Hand Promotions Incorporated, No. CV-24-01039-PHX-KML

10 Plaintiff, ORDER

11 v.

12 RPRGA Properties LLC, et al.,

13 Defendants. 14 15 Plaintiff Joe Hand Promotions, Inc., requests the court enforce an alleged settlement 16 agreement between it and defendants RPRGA Properties LLC and Guadalupe M. Galvaiz. 17 “It is well settled that a district court has the equitable power to enforce summarily an 18 agreement to settle a case pending before it.” Callie v. Near, 829 F.2d 888, 890 (9th Cir. 19 1987). But a “court may enforce only complete settlement agreements.” Id. 20 “[S]tate contract law governs whether [parties] reached an enforceable agreement 21 settling” federal claims. Wilcox v. Arpaio, 753 F.3d 872, 876 (9th Cir. 2014). Under 22 Arizona law, an enforceable contract requires “an offer, an acceptance, consideration, and 23 sufficient specification of terms so that obligations involved can be ascertained.” Contempo 24 Const. Co. v. Mountain States Tel. & Tel. Co., 736 P.2d 13, 15 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1987). Based 25 on the evidence plaintiff provided, the parties agreed to settle their dispute for $6,000, but 26 plaintiff provided no evidence of any other terms the parties agreed upon. The emails 27 attached to plaintiff’s motion establish defendants offered $6,000 “to settle this matter” and 28 plaintiff was “willing to accept a lump sum of $6,000 paid in 10 days.” (Doc. 13-1 at 2.) 1 The email from plaintiff’s counsel, however, also states counsel would “provide 2 [defendants] a proposed settlement agreement for [their] review.” (Doc. 13-1 at 2.) 3 The reference to a “settlement agreement” indicates the parties anticipated 4 additional terms beyond merely the payment of $6,000. Those terms likely were material 5 as it would be unusual for defendants to agree to pay $6,000 without an assurance that 6 plaintiff was releasing its claims. At the very least, the present motion to enforce the 7 settlement agreement does not establish the parties “mutually consent[ed] to all material 8 terms.” Hill-Shafer P’ship v. Chilson Fam. Tr., 799 P.2d 810, 814 (Ariz. 1990). Therefore, 9 there is no settlement agreement for the court to enforce. Cf. Nesbitt v. City of Bullhead 10 City, No. CV-18-08354-PCT-DJH, 2020 WL 6262396, at *4 (D. Ariz. Oct. 23, 2020) 11 (finding enforceable agreement because the evidence made “clear that the sum was not the 12 only point of agreement”). 13 The complaint was filed in May 2024, defendants were served that same month, yet 14 defendants have not appeared. Because of the confusion surrounding the attempted 15 settlement, defendants are given additional time to respond to the complaint. If defendants 16 do not respond to the complaint, plaintiff must seek entry of defaults and default judgment. 17 Plaintiff is required to personally serve a copy of this order on defendants. 18 Accordingly, 19 IT IS ORDERED the Motion to Enforce (Doc. 13) is DENIED. 20 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED within ten days of this order plaintiff shall serve a 21 copy of this order on defendants and file proof of service on the docket. 22 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED defendants must respond to the complaint within 23 ten days of receiving this order. 24 / 25 / 26 / 27 / 28 / 1 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED if defendants do not respond to the complaint, || within five days of defendants’ deadline to respond expiring, plaintiff shall apply for entry of defaults. Plaintiff shall file a motion for default judgment within ten days of the entry of 4|| defaults. 5 Dated this 27th day of January, 2025. 6 7 @L f g UL AQ TV. WCLA _ Honorable Krissa M. Lanham 9 United States District Judge 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

-3-