PRENTISS DAVIS V. USA, No. 13-35233 (9th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 19 2015 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT PRENTISS B. DAVIS, No. 13-35233 Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:11-cv-01033-JCC v. MEMORANDUM* UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant, and THE BOEING COMPANY; AETNA INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington John C. Coughenour, District Judge, Presiding Submitted May 13, 2015** Before: LEAVY, CALLAHAN, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges. * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Prentiss B. Davis appeals pro se from the district court’s order enforcing settlement and dismissing his action alleging violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act and state law. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion the enforcement of a settlement agreement, Doi v. Halekulani Corp., 276 F.3d 1131, 1136 (9th Cir. 2002), and we affirm. The district court did not abuse its discretion by enforcing the settlement agreement with The Boeing Company (“Boeing”) because its findings that the agreement was comprehensive, that Davis agreed to the terms, and that Davis did not sign under threat, intimidation, or duress, were not clearly erroneous. See id. at 1137-38 (explaining that a district court may enforce only complete settlement agreements, and noting that an agreement is binding even if a party has a change of heart). We do not consider Davis’s arguments concerning the district court’s order partially granting Boeing’s motion for summary judgment because the settlement agreement disposes of all of Davis’s claims against Boeing in this action. In light of Davis’s request that this court honor his agreement with Aetna Insurance Company (“Aetna”), set forth in his November 18, 2013 filing, we deem Davis’s appeal as to Aetna abandoned. 2 13-35233 We do not consider arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009) (per curiam). AFFIRMED. 3 13-35233
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
