Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-00362/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-00362-10/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 160
Nature of Suit: Stockholder's Suits
Cause of Action: 28:1331bc Fed. Question: Breach of Contract

---

1

3:17-cv-00362-H-WVG

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DR. CHARBEL MAKSOUD,

Plaintiff,

v.

PHILIPPE GUELTON,

Defendant.

Case No.: 3:17-cv-00362-H-WVG

ORDER:

(1) COMPELLING 

ATTENDANCE AT INPERSON SETTLEMENT 

CONFERENCE ON MARCH 5, 

2020 AT 9:00 A.M. 

(2)SETTING STATUS 

CONFERENCE BEFORE THE 

DISTRICT COURT 

FOLLOWING THE INPERSON SETTLEMENT 

CONFERENCE ON MARCH 5, 

2020

[Doc. No. 201.]

This case was set for trial on April 18, 2019. (Doc. No. 149.) On April 2, 2019, the 

Parties notified the Court that they had reached a settlement agreement and the terms of 

that settlement were read on the record. (Doc. No. 184.) On April 9, 2019, the magistrate 

judge ordered a status conference concerning the settlement for April 10, 2019. (Doc. No. 

184 at 4.) The magistrate judge issued a formal briefing schedule on the issue of settlement 

enforcement with a hearing date set for May 31, 2019 and ordered the parties to meet and 

Case 3:17-cv-00362-H-WVG Document 209 Filed 02/27/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 4
2

3:17-cv-00362-H-WVG

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

confer. (Id. at 5.) The parties failed to file any briefing on the subject and did not meet and 

confer. (Id.) On May 31, 2019, as scheduled, the Court convened a hearing on the issue of 

settlement enforcement. (Id. at 6.) Plaintiff’s counsel failed to appear. (Id.)

On July 17, 2019, the magistrate judge issued a report and recommendation (“R&R”) 

that the Court enforce the settlement agreement entered between Plaintiff Charbel Maksoud 

and Defendant Philippe Guelton and enter final judgment. (Doc. No. 184.) On August 13, 

2019, the Court enforced the settlement agreement but did not enter a final judgment since 

the settlement was a compromise of a disputed claim. (Doc. No. 191.) The Court also 

ordered the parties to file a status report within thirty days. (Id.) Instead on August 26, 

2019, the Defendant filed a notice of appeal to the Ninth Circuit. (Doc. No. 192.)1 On 

October 29, 2019, Defendant voluntarily dismissed the appeal to the Ninth Circuit. (Doc.

No. 200.) 

On November 12, 2019, Defendant Guelton filed a motion for clarification regarding 

the enforcement of the settlement agreement. (Doc. No. 201.) On November 15, 2019, the 

Court held a telephonic hearing regarding the matter. (Doc No. 203.) On December 4, 2019, 

the Court referred the matter to the magistrate judge and ordered the parties to propose a 

date for a settlement conference by January 16, 2020. (Doc No. 205.) On January 3, 2020, 

Defendant Guelton filed a Motion for Clarification regarding the Court’s prior order on 

December 4, 2019. (Doc. No. 206.) On January 10, 2020, the Court issued an order 

referring the matter to the magistrate judge, stating that “no further clarification is 

required,” and again ordered the parties to propose a date for the settlement conference by 

January 16, 2020. (Doc. No. 207.) The parties failed to comply with the Court’s order.

On January 24, 2020, the magistrate judge issued an order scheduling the in-person 

settlement conference for March 5, 2020 after the parties failed to comply with the Court 

order. (Doc. No. 208.) The magistrate judge also ordered that settlement statements be 

 

1 On September 12, 2019, Defendant filed a motion for approval of a bond to stay enforcement 

pending the disposition of their appeal. (Doc. No. 195.) On October 10, 2019, the Court denied the 

motion. (Doc. No. 199.)

Case 3:17-cv-00362-H-WVG Document 209 Filed 02/27/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 4
3

3:17-cv-00362-H-WVG

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

submitted by February 26, 2020. (Id.) This Court also orders the in-person attendance of

Plaintiff Maksoud and Defendant Guelton and counsel at the in-person settlement 

conference on March 5, 2020 at 9:00 a.m before Magistrate Judge William V. Gallo, United 

States Courthouse, Courtroom 2A, Second Floor, 221 West Broadway, San Diego, 

California. (Doc. No. 208.) If either party cannot physically attend the in-person settlement 

conference the party may make a showing of good cause to the magistrate judge and the 

magistrate judge can determine if the party can attend telephonically. The Court strongly 

believes that there is a benefit to in-person attendance but recognizes that if there is good 

cause shown, the decision will be left to the sound discretion of the magistrate judge.

Immediately following the in-person settlement conference, the Court orders the 

parties and counsel to attend a status conference before District Court Judge Marilyn Huff, 

United States Courthouse, Courtroom 15a, Fifteenth Floor, 333 West Broadway, San 

Diego California. If either party cannot physically attend the status conference, the party 

may make a showing of good cause to this Court and the Court will determine if the party 

can attend telephonically. 

The Court reminds the parties that once a party enters into a binding settlement 

agreement, that party cannot unliterally decide to back out of the agreement. Doi v. 

Halekulani Corporation, 276 F.3d 1131, 1131 (9th Cir. 2002.) A settlement is complete, 

and binding on all the parties, when its material terms are confirmed orally on the record. 

Id. at 1138. The Court previously found the settlement agreement to be enforceable and 

valid. (Doc. No. 191.) As a result, the Parties should again be prepared to comply with the 

terms of the settlement agreement if the magistrate judge and the district court so order. 

Additionally, given the record before the Court, district courts have the inherent 

power to control their dockets and, “[i]n the exercise of that power they may impose 

sanctions including, where appropriate, . . . dismissal of a case.” Thompson v. Housing 

Auth., 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 829, (1986). Failure to comply 

with this order may result in any and all appropriate sanctions. 

Case 3:17-cv-00362-H-WVG Document 209 Filed 02/27/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 4
4

3:17-cv-00362-H-WVG

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Finally, if the Court again determines that the settlement is valid and enforceable, 

the Court reserves the right, if appropriate, to issue a final judgment on the settlement. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: February 26, 2020

 

MARILYN L. HUFF, District Judge

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Case 3:17-cv-00362-H-WVG Document 209 Filed 02/27/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 4