(PC) Dunsmore v. Thomas

Opinion

Darryl Dunsmore, No. 2:17-cev-2355-KJM-AC Plaintiff, ORDER v. M. Thomas, 1S Defendant. Plaintiff Darryl Dunsmore moves to enforce the settlement agreement entered into with defendant. See Mot., ECF No. 53.! The parties settled Dunsmore’s claims in June 2024, following a court-convened settlement conference. See Mins. Settlement Conference (Mins.), ECF No. 49. The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) entered into the agreement on behalf of defendant Thomas. /d. The court retained jurisdiction to enforce the settlement. /d. Dunsmore now asserts CDCR has breached the terms of the settlement agreement and moves this court to enforce the settlement.

' Dunsmore filed his motion as a motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). Enforcement of a “settlement agreement essentially is an action to specifically enforce a contract,” Adams v. Johns-Manville Corp., 876 F.2d 702, 709 (9th Cir. 1989) and not a motion under Rule 60, which controls “Relief from a Judgment or Order.” The court therefore construes the filing as a motion to enforce settlement.

Under Local Rule 230(a), the court orders the parties to brief the matter and sets the following schedule: e Defendant shall file an opposition, if any, within fourteen (14) days. e Dunsmore shall file his reply, if any, no later than fourteen (14) days after the opposition is filed. e The matter is scheduled for a hearing before the court on March 27, 2025, at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom 3. DATED: February 4, 2025. oUt — ¥ FMS —— STATES DISTRICT JUDGE