Olvey v. Errotabere Ranches et al, No. 1:2006cv00653 - Document 220 (E.D. Cal. 2011)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM DECISION and ORDER Re Plaintiff's Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement, signed by Judge Oliver W. Wanger on 3/16/2011. (Plaintiffs motion to enforce settlement agreement is DENIED, subject to the Road measurement condition specified in this memorandum decision. Defendants shall submit a proposed form of order consistent with this memorandum decision within five (5) days of electronic service of this memorandum decision.) (Gaumnitz, R)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3 4 JAMES OLVEY, 5 6 7 8 9 10 1:06-cv-00653 OWW SMS Plaintiff, MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER RE PLAINTIFF S MOTION TO ENFORCE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT. v. ERROTABERE RANCHES, a California partnership; DANIEL D. ERROTABERE, an individual; JEAN ERROTABERE, an individual, (DOC. 215) Defendant. 11 12 I. 13 14 15 INTRODUCTION Plaintiff, pro per, moves to enforce the Settlement Agreement dated February 5, 2009 ( Settlement Agreement ). Doc. 16 215. Plaintiff contends that Defendants have not satisfied the 17 Settlement Agreement s remaining conditions and seeks (1) an 18 order granting Plaintiff and his agents access to Defendants 19 property to complete construction of the road required by Section 20 21 2E of the Settlement Agreement ( Road ); and (2) the costs of bringing this motion and reimbursement of costs to construct the 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Road. Defendants oppose the motion. Doc. 217. The matter was heard on March 14, 2011. II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND On May 26, 2006, Plaintiff filed a Complaint against Defendants alleging misrepresentations of the terms of a Purchase 1 1 and Sale agreement. Doc. 1. The case went to trial before a jury 2 April 2008; partial judgment was entered for Plaintiff for 3 damages, costs, and pre-judgment interest. Doc. 167. On February 4 5, 2009, the parties entered into the Settlement Agreement to 5 6 7 resolve Plaintiff s remaining claim. By Order dated November 19, 2010, the Court held that: (1) 8 all settlement conditions in the Settlement Agreement were 9 satisfied, other than a dispute over Section 2E of the Settlement 10 Agreement regarding the width of the Road; and (2) upon filing 11 with the Court proof of the payment in Section 2G of the 12 13 Settlement Agreement, all remaining pending claims in the Complaint will be dismissed with prejudice. Doc. 214. At issue is 14 15 whether these two settlement conditions have been satisfied. 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 III. ANALYSIS A. Road Width Section 2E of the Settlement Agreement provides: After the harvest of Olvey s 2009 cotton crop on the Olvey parcel, and not later than January 1, 2010, the Errotaberes shall immediately construct a 30 wide dirt field road, traveling in an East-West direction, just South of the Northernmost boundary of their property. The dirt field road currently existing in this area, which is located on Olvey s parcel, shall become the sole property of Olvey and all parties understand and agree that Olvey has the right to plow the road under and use the land for crops or other purposes. The new road, constructed by Errotabere, is to be shared equally by both parties. Other than in the normal course of farming and cultural husbandry, neither party shall disrupt, block or prevent the other party from having full and complete access to and use of this road. Doc. 217, Ex. 1, § 2E. 2 1 Plaintiff states that after the November 8, 2010 hearing, 2 Plaintiff hired a surveyor to identify the northern and southern 3 boundaries of Defendants property and measured the distance 4 between the property boundary line and the southern edge of the 5 6 7 road. Plaintiff contends that while the Settlement Agreement requires a 30-foot Road, the distance between the southern 8 boundary of the Road and the property line is as little as 13 9 feet in some places. Plaintiff provides a video of the Road dated 10 November 22, 2010 on which he alleges that Defendants built a 11 fence, constructed a ditch in the Road, and decreased the width 12 13 of the Road. Defendants contend that the Road did measure 30 feet as 14 15 required by the Settlement Agreement, but that Plaintiff s tenant 16 constructed a ditch in the Road. Doc. 217, Ex. 2, ¶ 3. At the 17 Court s request on November 2, 2010, Defense counsel visually 18 inspected the Road and measured it in its then-current state (not 19 as originally constructed) as between 28 to 29 feet (Doc. 217, 20 Ex. 2, ¶ 3) and up to 33 feet in some portions (Doc. 217, Ex. 3, 21 6-9). After receiving this motion, Jean Errotabere declares that 22 23 24 Defendants used global positioning to score a road that was exactly 30 feet wide from beginning to end. Doc. 218, ¶ 4. 25 Defendants contend that in response, Plaintiff extended the 26 existing ditch onto the Road, flooding and reducing the 27 traversable width of the Road. Doc. 218, ¶ 5. Defendants provide 28 3 1 2 3 4 pictures of the flooded Road. Doc. 218, Ex. 1-2. The parties are reminded that Section 2E of the Settlement Agreement requires that [o]ther than in the normal course of farming and cultural husbandry, neither party shall disrupt, 5 6 7 block or prevent the other party from having full and complete access to and use of this road. Doc. 217, Ex. 1, § 2E (emphasis 8 added). Building a ditch and flooding the Road breach the 9 Settlement Agreement. 10 11 12 13 The Errotaberes shall measure the width of the Road every 1/8th mile by placing stakes on both edges of the Road, recording the distance between the stakes, and photographing the width of the Road and stakes. Plaintiff and his surveyor may accompany the 14 15 Errotaberes while they measure the Road and may check and confirm 16 the Errotaberes measurements. The Errotaberes shall file a 17 declaration with the measurements and photographs within ten (10) 18 days following the date of service of this memorandum decision. 19 20 21 22 23 24 B. Payment Section 2G of the Settlement Agreement provides: The Errotaberes shall, within twenty (20) days of the date of completion of the lot line adjustment referenced in Paragraph 3, below, pay Olvey a 1/3 share of the $15,994 in costs Olvey incurred with Quad Knopf in generating the record of survey for the Olvey parcel which the parties have utilized. 25 Doc. 217, Ex. 1, § 2G. Defendants 1/3 share of $15,994 equals 26 $5,331.33 ( Payment ). 27 28 Plaintiff contends that Defendants have not made the 4 1 Payment, and have not filed any proof of Payment as required by 2 the Court s Order dated November 22, 2010. 3 4 Defendants contend that they mailed Plaintiff a check in the amount of $5,331.34 to satisfy the Payment. Defendants provide 5 6 7 (1) a copy of the uncancelled check dated December 14, 2010, and (2) a letter from Defendants counsel s office to Plaintiff 8 enclosing the check. Doc. 217, Ex. 4. Defendants do not offer 9 proof that the check was mailed and/or received by Plaintiff. On 10 January 29, 2011, Defendants counsel e-mailed Plaintiff to 11 confirm receipt of the check. Doc. 217, Ex. 5. Defendants contend 12 13 that Plaintiff never responded; instead, Plaintiff filed this motion. 14 15 At the hearing, Plaintiff stated that he has never received 16 the check. Defendants gave Plaintiff a new check at the hearing, 17 which the court witnessed. The Payment contingency in Section 2G 18 of the Settlement Agreement is satisfied. 19 IV. 20 21 22 CONCLUSION For the reasons stated: 1. Plaintiff s motion to enforce settlement agreement is 23 DENIED, subject to the Road measurement condition specified 24 in this memorandum decision. 25 26 27 28 2. Defendants shall submit a proposed form of order consistent with this memorandum decision within five (5) days of electronic service of this memorandum decision. 5 1 SO ORDERED. 2 DATED: March 16, 2011. 3 4 _ _/s/ Oliver W. Wanger _____ Oliver W. Wanger United States District Judge 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 6
]]>
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.
