Lee v. City of Sacramento

Opinion

IVAN S. LEE, No. 2:17-cv-118-JAM-EFB PS Plaintiff, v. ORDER Defendant. On July 29, 2020, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein which were served on the parties and which contained notice that any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. Plaintiff filed objections on August 11, 2020, and they were considered by the undersigned. This court reviews de novo those portions of the proposed findings of fact to which objection has been made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Commodore Business Machines, 656 F.2d 1309, 1313 (9th Cir. 1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 920 (1982). As to any portion of the proposed findings of fact to which no objection has been made, the court assumes its correctness and decides the motions on the applicable law. See Orand v. United States, 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified Sch. Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983). ///// The court has reviewed the applicable legal standards and, good cause appearing, concludes that it is appropriate to adopt the proposed Findings and Recommendations in full. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that: 1. The proposed Findings and Recommendations filed July 29, 2020, are adopted; 2. Defendant’s motion to enforce the settlement agreement (ECF No. 54) is granted; 3. Plaintiff’s motion to set aside the settlement agreement (ECF No. 57) is denied; 4. Defendant is directed to pay plaintiff $8,750 within 14 days of the date of service of this order; 5. Defendant’s request for attorney’s fees is denied without prejudice to filing a properly- supported motion for attorneys’ fees; and 6. This action is dismissed with prejudice pursuant to the terms of the parties’ settlement agreement. DATED: September 9, 2020 /s/ John A. Mendez____________ _____ UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE