Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01362/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01362-9/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

No formal opposition was filed on Doucette’s behalf because 1

his attorneys do not oppose the motion. Doucette opposed the motion and

argued against it at the hearing and the Court considered his filings

against the settlement. 

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARK DOUCETTE, )

) 2:05-cv-01362-GEB-KJM

Plaintiff, )

) ORDER

v. )

)

COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO; DEPUTY )

MARTIN CROSBY; SERGEANT DAVID )

CUNEO; DEPUTY CORY MOORE, )

 )

Defendants. )

)

Defendants move to enforce the settlement agreement reached

between Defendants and Plaintiff (“Doucette” or “Plaintiff”). 

Doucette opposes the motion.1

BACKGROUND

On November 8, 2003, Plaintiff was arrested for allegedly

driving a vehicle with stolen license plates. Plaintiff filed a

Complaint against Defendants claiming, inter alia, that he was

unlawfully arrested and that Defendants used excessive force against

him in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff and Defendants

Case 2:05-cv-01362-GEB -KJM Document 36 Filed 05/29/07 Page 1 of 5
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

The provision was subsequently approved. 2

2

entered into mediation on January 29, 2007 and according to

Defendants, reached a settlement agreement. (Mot. at 3:4; Mark

Doucette Decl. Opposing Settlement Agreement (“Doucette Decl.”) ¶ 2.) 

Subsequently, upon the parties’ joint request and stipulation, on

March 1, 2007, the Court issued an Order continuing the final pretrial conference scheduled for March 12, 2007, for a period of two

weeks based on the parties’ representation that the “case was settled

with one provision of the settlement agreement requiring that the

amount of the settlement be approved by the Sacramento County Risk

Management.” (March 1, 2007 Order at 1:24-26.) Also on March 1, 2

2007, Doucette filed a letter addressed to the Court dated February 6,

2007, in which he requested an extension of the final pretrial

conference and trial date because he was seeking new attorneys to

represent him in the matter. Further, on March 5, 2007, Doucette

filed a Declaration in which he declares he attended the mediation on

January 29, 2007, but the signature on the settlement agreement is not

his. (Doucette Decl. ¶ 6.) 

DISCUSSION

A hearing was held on Monday, May 14, 2007. Defendants’

attorney Mark O’Dea, Doucette, and Doucette’s attorney Deborah Barron,

appeared at the hearing. O’Dea stated that Doucette signed the

settlement agreement. Barron stated that Doucette clearly signed the

settlement agreement and that he is now experiencing “buyer’s

remorse.” Doucette stated that he did not recall whether he signed

the agreement. When asked if the statement that “he did not recall”

signing the settlement agreement could mean that he may have signed it

Case 2:05-cv-01362-GEB -KJM Document 36 Filed 05/29/07 Page 2 of 5
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

 Other matters were discussed at the hearing. In particular, 3

Doucette expressed his intention of obtaining new representation in this

matter and requested fourteen to twenty-one days to engage new counsel.

However, Doucette indicated that he would only be able to obtain new

counsel on the condition that his current attorneys withdraw from the

case because new counsel refused to share an eventual attorney fee award

with the current attorneys. Barron would not change the fee arrangement

which Doucette argued would enable him to get another lawyer. Doucette

stated that upon obtaining an award at trial, he would be willing to

stipulate to pay Barron the same amount she would be entitled to under

the terms of the settlement agreement. Barron countered that she would

not accept such a stipulation. 

 

3

but could not remember, Doucette responded affirmatively and added

that, in the alternative, his statement could mean that he

misunderstood what he was signing.3

Defendants submit the declaration of the mediator, Daniel

Quinn, in support of their motion, who declares that “Doucette signed

the settlement agreement in front of his attorneys.” (Decl. of Daniel

F. Quinn in Supp. of Mot. ¶ 4.) Defendants also argue that “[b]oth

attorneys who represent the Plaintiff in this action deny that [the

signature on the settlement agreement] is a forgery, and have stated

that the settlement agreement was authorized by Mr. Doucette.” (Mot.

at 4:3-5.) 

“A settlement agreement is treated as any other contract for

purposes of interpretation.” United Commercial Ins. Serv., Inc. v.

Paymaster Corp., 962 F.2d 853, 866 (9th Cir. 1992). “It is wellsettled that a district court has the equitable power to enforce

summarily an agreement to settle a case pending before it.” Callie v.

Near, 829 F.2d 888, 890 (9th Cir. 1987). “However, the district court

may only enforce complete settlement agreements.” Id. Complete

settlement agreements are those where there is no disputed “material

facts concerning the existence or terms of an agreement to settle.” 

Case 2:05-cv-01362-GEB -KJM Document 36 Filed 05/29/07 Page 3 of 5
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

4

Id. Under California law, the determination of the existence or terms

of an agreement is made by reference to the objective intent of the

parties. United Commercial Ins. Serv., Inc., 962 F.2d at 866. 

Objective intent is “the intent manifested in the agreement and by

surrounding conduct[,] rather than the subjective beliefs of the

parties. For this reason, the true intent of a party is irrelevant if

it is unexpressed.” Id. In other words, the parties’ “outward

manifestation or expression of assent is controlling.” Binder v.

Aetna Life Ins. Co., 75 Cal. App. 4th 832, 851 (1999). 

In this case, while Plaintiff affirmatively stated in his

declaration that he “did not sign this settlement agreement and the

signature on the document is not [his,]” at the hearing, Plaintiff

contradicted himself by stating that he did not recall whether he had

signed the settlement agreement. (Doucette Decl. ¶ 6.) Plaintiff

then indicated to the Court that this statement could mean that he

signed the agreement yet did not remember doing so or that he

misunderstood what he had signed. Under California law, “the courts

will not set aside contractual obligations, particularly where they

are embodied in written contracts, merely because one of the parties

claims to have been ignorant of, or to have misunderstood, the

provisions of the contract.” Hedging Concepts, Inc. v. First Alliance

Mortgage Co., 41 Cal. App. 4th 1410, 1421 (1996). Further, Defendants

submitted a number of documents containing Plaintiff’s signature that

are substantially similar to Plaintiff’s alleged signature on the

settlement agreement. (See John A. Lavra Decl. in Supp. of Mot., Exs.

J, K, L.) Since the record evinces that Plaintiff signed the

settlement agreement, and the parties’ “outward manifestation or

expression of assent is controlling” under California law, the

Case 2:05-cv-01362-GEB -KJM Document 36 Filed 05/29/07 Page 4 of 5
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

5

settlement agreement is complete and will be enforced. Binder, 75

Cal. App. 4th at 851. 

CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated, the parties have reached a

settlement agreement as reflected in Exhibit A of the Lavra

Declaration. Therefore, pursuant to the settlement agreement, this

action is dismissed with prejudice. The Clerk of the Court is

directed to serve Plaintiff with a copy of this Order at the following

address: Mark A. Doucette; 767 Eagle Avenue; Alameda, California

94501.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: May 25, 2007

 

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

 

 

 

Case 2:05-cv-01362-GEB -KJM Document 36 Filed 05/29/07 Page 5 of 5