ANTON EWING V. K2 PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT, LLC, No. 18-56487 (9th Cir. 2019)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED JUL 24 2019 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ANTON A. EWING, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 18-56487 Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 3:16-cv-00678-LAB-AGS v. MEMORANDUM* K2 PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT, LLC, DBA Conserva Solar, a California Limited Liability Company; et al., Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Larry A. Burns, District Judge, Presiding Submitted July 15, 2019** Before: SCHROEDER, SILVERMAN, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges. Anton A. Ewing appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment enforcing the terms of a settlement agreement in his action alleging federal and state law claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). discretion the district court’s enforcement of a settlement agreement, Doi v. Halekulani Corp., 276 F.3d 1131, 1136 (9th Cir. 2002), and for clear error the district court’s findings of fact, Ahern v. Cent. Pac. Freight Lines, 846 F.2d 47, 48 (9th Cir. 1988). We affirm. The district court did not abuse its discretion by enforcing the parties’ settlement agreement because the district court’s findings that Ewing agreed to the terms, and that defendants substantially complied with those terms, were not clearly erroneous. See Doi, 276 F.3d at 1137-40 (district court did not abuse its discretion in enforcing settlement agreement where material terms of agreement were read into the record and parties agreed to them); Jeff D. v. Andrus, 899 F.2d 753, 759 (9th Cir. 1989) (“The construction and enforcement of settlement agreements are governed by principles of local law which apply to interpretation of contracts generally.”); see also Cal. Civ. Code § 1550 (setting forth essential elements to the existence of a contract under California law); id. § 1567 (consent not free when obtained through duress, fraud, undue influence, or mistake). We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009). Appellee Klein’s request for sanctions under 28 U.S.C. § 1927, set forth in 2 18-56487 his answering brief, is denied. AFFIRMED. 3 18-56487

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.