Unpublished Disposition, 874 F.2d 818 (9th Cir. 1986)

MEMORANDUM^* 

Appellant Daniel Walden appeals the district court's (1) denial of his motion to enforce an alleged settlement agreement and (2) imposition of monetary sanctions for failure to file dispositional documents in accordance with local rules. We affirm the district court's denial of the motion to enforce, and reverse the order imposing sanctions.

Walden brought suit in federal district court alleging that ATB Packing Company and Rose Valley Produce Company ("Employers") had breached labor contracts in their hiring practices, and that Fresh Fruit & Vegetable Workers, Local P-78-B ("Union") had breached its duty to fairly represent Walden in the ensuing disputes. Three days before the consolidated trial on these issues, the parties allegedly entered into an oral settlement agreement. The parties informed the district court that a settlement had been reached; the court removed the jury trial from calendar and ordered the parties to file dispositional documents by August 6, 1986.

The parties' respective attorneys exchanged several letters to memorialize the material terms of their purported oral agreement. While the parties dispute the precise meaning of the terms of the agreement as memorialized in this correspondence, they all found common ground as to these settlement terms: Employers would pay Walden $15,000.00; Walden would be offered a job packing melons for the summer of 1986 at a shed operated by a third-party named Johnny Valenzuela; the Union would use its best efforts to secure a job for Walden in Arizona for future seasons; and Walden would not seek future employment from the Employers.

Walden was subsequently offered a job with Valenzuela as the "fourth packer", but his services were never needed since that season's poor melon harvest necessitated the assistance of only two to three packers. The parties then fell into a dispute over who was responsible for securing Walden employment under the terms of the agreement. Both the Union and the Employers deny any responsibility for guaranteeing Walden a job. The Employers claim that they were not obligated in any way under the agreement with respect to securing Walden a job, and the Union claims that it had only promised to use its best efforts in finding Walden suitable employment.

Walden filed a motion to enforce the settlement agreement, and a hearing was held on October 22, 1986. Walden's motion sought money damages and equitable remedies, and alternatively requested that the matter be reset for trial in the event that the motion was denied; Walden did not request an evidentiary hearing. Declarations were submitted by counsel for each party, and counsel was questioned from the bench, but no testimony was taken and the parties did not personally participate in the hearing. The district court denied the motion, finding that no settlement agreement existed since the parties had not agreed on all the material terms. The district court also ordered each of the attorneys to pay sanctions in the sum of $300.00 for violating E.D. Cal. R. 160 by failing to file dispositional documents before the court-imposed August 6th deadline. The subsequent trial on the merits of Walden's claims resulted in a jury verdict and judgment in favor of the Union and the Employers.

Walden first assigns as error the district court's summary refusal to enforce the alleged settlement agreement.

It is clear that the district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to enforce a settlement agreement under the terms Walden advances. Although Walden contends that the settlement pact agreed to by all parties placed responsibility on the Union and/or the Employers to secure Walden employment as a melon packer, the record demonstrates that neither the Employers nor the Union had the ability to guarantee that Johnny Valenzuela or any other employer would actually hire Walden. Moreover, the parties clearly never agreed upon who would bear ultimate responsibility in the event that Valenzuela or other potential employers failed to provide work for Walden. Thus, it is apparent that the parties simply never reached a complete agreement.¹ 

Further, the district court did not abuse its discretion in failing to call an evidentiary hearing. It is clear that a district court has discretion to summarily refuse to enforce a settlement agreement. See Callie v. Near, 829 F.2d 888 (9th Cir. 1987) (providing the converse rule, that a district court has the power to summarily enforce a settlement agreement). As an initial matter, it should be noted that Walden never requested an evidentiary hearing in connection with his motion to enforce the alleged settlement agreement. Furthermore, it is extremely unlikely that an evidentiary hearing would have brought to light evidence demonstrating that a meeting of the minds as to all material terms of the agreement had occurred in this case. Given the parties' respective positions as set forth to the trial court through counsel, it is reasonable to assume that an evidentiary hearing to determine whether a complete, enforceable agreement existed would have been a waste of judicial resources. Under circumstances such as these, the district court was clearly acting within its discretion to deny Walden's motion without first engaging in an evidentiary hearing.

Walden also challenges the district court's imposition of sanctions pursuant to a violation of a local rule. Imposition of sanctions based upon violation of local rules should be reviewed for abuse of discretion. Kirshner v. Uniden Corp. of America, 842 F.2d 1074, 1083 (9th Cir. 1988).

In this case, the district court sanctioned all counsel for violating Local Rule 160 for the Eastern District of California. See E.D. Cal. R. 160 (requires that parties immediately notify the court upon settlement of an action and file the documents disposing of the action by the date fixed by the court; also authorizes the imposition of sanctions for failure to file such papers within the appropriate time). Local Rule 160 clearly presupposes the existence of a valid settlement agreement. However, in this case the district court ordered the imposition of sanctions despite finding that the parties had never reached an enforceable settlement agreement. Thus, the district court abused its discretion by imposing sanctions absent an enforceable agreement. The order imposing sanctions of $300.00 on each of the three attorneys must therefore be reversed.

AFFIRMED in part and REVERSED in part.

The defendants-appellees are entitled to their costs on appeal.