J & J Sports Productions, Inc. v. Chai, No. 1:2009cv00450 - Document 20 (E.D. Cal. 2010)
Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS recommending that Plaintiff's 17 Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement be Granted and that Judgment be entered in Favor of Plaintiff J&J Sports Productions, Inc and Against Defendant Corazon Cruz Chai, individually and dba INANG'S TAPSI & BBQ in the Amount of $5000.00 signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 7/27/2010. Referred to Judge Anthony W. Ishii. Objections to F&R due by 8/11/2010. (Sant Agata, S)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
J & J Sports Productions, Inc. v. Chai Doc. 20 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 J & J SPORTS PRODUCTIONS, INC., 11 12 13 14 15 16 ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) ) CORAZON CRUZ CHAI, individually and ) d/b/a/ INANG’S TAPSI & BBQ, ) ) Defendant. ) ) 1:09-cv-00450 AWI GSA FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO ENFORCE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT (Document 17) 17 18 On June 11, 2010, Plaintiff J & J Sports Productions, Inc. (“Plaintiff”) filed its Motion to 19 Enforce Settlement Agreement. (Doc. 17.) The matter was heard July 16, 2010, before 20 Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin. Thomas P. Riley telephonically appeared on behalf of 21 Plaintiff. No appearance was made by Defendant. (Doc. 19.) 22 PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 23 On March 10, 2009, Plaintiff filed its complaint against Corazon Cruz Chai, individually 24 and doing business as Inang’s Tapsi & BBQ. The complaint alleges violations of 47 United 25 States Code sections 553 and 605, a violation of California Business and Professions Code 26 section 17200, et seq, and a state law claim of conversion. The complaint seeks damages in 27 excess of $160,000 for the violations alleged. (Doc. 1.) 28 // 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 Defendant was personally served with the summons and complaint on April 21, 2009. 2 (Doc. 5.) On May 6, 2009, Defendant, appearing pro se, filed a written response to the complaint 3 with the Court. (Doc. 6.) 4 On September 21, 2009, following a settlement conference before the undersigned, the 5 parties agreed to a settlement and the terms of their agreement were placed on the record. (Doc. 6 15.) 7 On June 2, 2010, it came to the Court’s attention that dispositional documents had not 8 been filed and the case remained pending despite the settlement. The Court issued a minute 9 order requiring Plaintiff to file dispositional documents within ten days, or alternatively, a status 10 11 report or other appropriate motion. (Doc. 16.) On June 11, 2010, Plaintiff filed the instant motion seeking to enforce the settlement 12 agreement. Specifically, Plaintiff seeks an order granting its motion and entry of judgment 13 against Defendant in the sum of $5,000.00, and other relief as may be just and proper. (Doc. 17.) 14 Defendant did not file a response to the motion. 15 16 DISCUSSION “A settlement agreement may be binding, in some circumstances, even if it is an oral 17 one.” Harrop v. Western Airlines, Inc., 550 F.2d 1143, 1145 (9th Cir. 1977). Where the action is 18 still pending, a party may move for an order to enforce a settlement agreement. 3 Schwarzer, 19 Tashima & Wagstaffe, Cal. Practice Guide: Federal Civil Procedure Before Trial (2000) Pretrial 20 Conference and Settlement Procedures, ¶ 15:147, p. 15-51. If a dismissal is not final, a district 21 court has continuing jurisdiction to enforce, modify or vacate the settlement agreement. 22 Consolidation Coal Co. v. United States Dept. of Interior, 43 F.Supp.2d 857, 863 (S.D. Oh. 23 1999). A district court has “inherent power to enforce the agreement in settlement of litigation 24 before it.” TNT Marketing, Inc. v. Agresti, 796 F.2d 276, 278 (9th Cir. 1986); In re Suchy, 786 25 F.2d 900, 902-903 (9th Cir. 1982). Such power includes “authority to award damages for failure 26 to comply with the settlement agreement” and to entitle the nonbreaching party to specific 27 performance. TNT Marketing, 796 F.2d at 278; Hobbs & Co. v. American Investors 28 2 1 Management, Inc., 576 F.2d 29, 33 & n. 7 (3rd Cir. 1978); Village of Kaktovik v. Watt, 689 F.2d 2 222, 230 (D.C. Cir. 1982). 3 A district court may enforce an oral settlement agreement when the parties placed the 4 material terms of the settlement agreement on the record in open court. In Doi v. Halekulani 5 Corp., 276 F.3d 1131, 1134 (9th Cir. 2002), the parties had negotiated a settlement that was 6 placed on the record before the district court. The parties agreed that they would sign a written 7 agreement memorializing the settlement, as well as a stipulation dismissing the action. Id. at 8 1135. The plaintiff subsequently declined to sign the agreement or stipulation, seeking instead to 9 renegotiate the terms of the settlement. Id. Thereafter, the district court granted the defendant's 10 motion to enforce the settlement agreement and awarded sanctions against plaintiff. Id. at 1136. 11 The Ninth Circuit affirmed the ruling, holding that the district court had not abused its discretion 12 in enforcing the settlement agreement because the parties clearly entered into a binding 13 agreement in open court. The Ninth Circuit agreed with the district court that the terms and 14 existence of the agreement were on the record and that the parties' written agreement accurately 15 reflected the terms of the agreement on the record. Id. at 1139-40. Following Doi, numerous 16 district courts have enforced oral settlement agreements under similar circumstances. As in Doi, 17 the terms of the oral settlement agreement were read into the court record. See Armstrong v. City 18 & County of San Francisco, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24505, *8-12, 2004 WL 2713068 (N.D. Cal. 19 June 15, 2004); Hubbard v. Yardage Town, Inc., 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 40404, *6-10, 2005 WL 20 3388146 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 29, 2005); Doe v. Washoe County, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 95312, 21 *25-26, 2006 WL 4013779 (D. Nev. Oct. 13, 2006); Scoff v. City & County of San Francisco, 22 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 50532, *6-11, 2007 WL 4976551 (N.D. Cal. July 12, 2007). 23 On September 21, 2009, Defendant agreed to pay the total sum of $5,000 as settlement of 24 Plaintiff’s claims. The money was to be paid “on or before October 21st, 2009” and provided to 25 counsel for Plaintiff. It was also agreed that Plaintiff’s counsel would prepare a release and a 26 stipulation of dismissal. (Doc. 15 at 2.) Once the terms of the agreement were memorialized on 27 the record, the following colloquy occurred: 28 3 1 THE COURT: All right. Mr. Chai, do you fully understand and agree to the terms of the settlement? First of all, do you understand the terms of the settlement? MR. CHAI: Yes, I do. THE COURT: And do you agree to be bound by them? MR. CHAI: Yes. 2 3 4 5 (Doc. 15 at 3.) The settlement is binding and this Court has the power to enforce this settlement. 6 Doi v. Halekulani Corp., 276 F.3d at 1139-40; TNT Marketing, Inc. v. Agresti, 796 F.2d at 278. 7 Plaintiff’s motion advises the Court that despite Defendant’s oral agreement to the terms 8 of the settlement on the record, “Defendant later changed his mind prior to signing the written 9 agreement . . ..” (Doc. 17 at 4.) Defendant has failed to pay the $5,000 in settlement of 10 Plaintiff’s claims. Attached to counsel’s declaration is a letter dated October 13, 2009, from 11 Defendant wherein Defendant acknowledged receipt of counsel’s previous correspondence and 12 the settlement documents. There is some confusion about the date upon which the settlement 13 monies were to be paid,1 nevertheless, Defendant went on to state as follows: 14 Due to multiple circumstances, closure of the business on July 1st 09, personal financial refrain [sic], and personal medical situation, I am unable to come up with the settlement sum . . .. Therefore, it is your prerogative to reinstate the suit. 15 16 17 (Doc. 17, Riley Decl., Ex. 5.) 18 Moreover, the Court has reviewed the settlement documents, as well as the accompanying 19 correspondence of Plaintiff’s counsel, and finds them to be accurate and consistent with the 20 terms of the settlement as placed on the record. (See Doc. 17, Riley Decl., Exs. 2-4.) 21 While this Court is certainly sympathetic to Defendant’s circumstances as reflected in the 22 letter to Plaintiff’s counsel, Defendant may not simply change his mind and eschew the 23 settlement. 24 // 25 // 26 // 27 28 A typographical error on one of Plaintiff’s settlement documents referenced October 1, 2009, however, other related documents reference the correct date of October 21, 2009. 4 1 1 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS 2 For the foregoing reasons, this RECOMMENDS as follows: 3 1. That Plaintiff’s Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement be GRANTED; and 4 2. That JUDGMENT be entered in favor of Plaintiff J & J Sports Productions, Inc. 5 and against Defendant Corazon Cruz Chai, individually and d/b/a INANG’S 6 TAPSI & BBQ, in the amount of $5,000.00. 7 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the district judge assigned to this 8 action, pursuant to Title 28 of the United States Code section 636(b)(1)(B) and this Court’s Local 9 Rule 304. Within fourteen (14) days of service of this recommendation, any party may file 10 written objections to these findings and recommendations with the Court and serve a copy on all 11 parties. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and 12 Recommendations.” The district judge will review the magistrate judge’s findings and 13 recommendations pursuant to Title 28 of the United States Code section 636(b)(1)(C). The 14 parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to 15 appeal the district judge’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 16 17 IT IS SO ORDERED. 18 Dated: 6i0kij July 27, 2010 /s/ Gary S. Austin UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 5
]]>
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.
