(PC) Dunsmore v. Thomas

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: February 4, 2025
• Docket: 2:17-cv-02355
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 | Darryl Dunsmore, No. 2:17-cev-2355-KJM-AC 12 Plaintiff, ORDER 13 v. M. Thomas, 1S Defendant. 16 17 Plaintiff Darryl Dunsmore moves to enforce the settlement agreement entered into with 18 | defendant. See Mot., ECF No. 53.! 19 The parties settled Dunsmore’s claims in June 2024, following a court-convened 20 | settlement conference. See Mins. Settlement Conference (Mins.), ECF No. 49. The California 21 | Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) entered into the agreement on behalf of 22 | defendant Thomas. /d. The court retained jurisdiction to enforce the settlement. /d. Dunsmore 23 | now asserts CDCR has breached the terms of the settlement agreement and moves this court to 24 | 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.

1 Under Local Rule 230(a), the court orders the parties to brief the matter and sets the 2 | following schedule: 3 e Defendant shall file an opposition, if any, within fourteen (14) days. 4 e Dunsmore shall file his reply, if any, no later than fourteen (14) days after the 5 opposition is filed. 6 e The matter is scheduled for a hearing before the court on March 27, 2025, at 7 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom 3. 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. 9 | DATED: February 4, 2025. oUt 10 — ¥ FMS —— STATES DISTRICT JUDGE