THOMAS BODNAR V. COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, No. 20-55496 (9th Cir. 2021)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED MAR 25 2021 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT THOMAS BODNAR, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 20-55496 Plaintiff-Appellant, v. D.C. No. 5:17-cv-01463-DSF-PLA MEMORANDUM* COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, Sheriffs Department; et al., Defendants-Appellees, and GEMENDE, Sergeant; et al., Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Dale S. Fischer, District Judge, Presiding Submitted March 16, 2021** Before: GRABER, R. NELSON, and HUNSAKER, Circuit Judges. Thomas Bodnar appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying his * 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). post-judgment motion to reopen the case to add a cause of action for breach of an oral settlement agreement. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for abuse of discretion. Weeks v. Bayer, 246 F.3d 1231, 1234 (9th Cir. 2001). We affirm. The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Bodnar’s motion to reopen his case because Bodnar failed to show that the parties entered into an oral settlement agreement separate from the written settlement agreement. See Golden v. Cal. Emergency Physicians Med. Grp., 782 F.3d 1083, 1089 (9th Cir. 2015) (construction and enforcement of a settlement agreement is governed by local law of contract interpretation); Banner Entm’t, Inc. v. Superior Court (Alchemy Filmworks, Inc.), 72 Cal. Rptr. 2d 598, 603 (Ct. App. 1998) (“California law is clear that there is no contract until there has been a meeting of the minds on all material points.”); see also Cal. Civ. Code § 1550 (setting forth essential elements to the existence of a contract under California law). AFFIRMED. 2 20-55496

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.