Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-01042/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-01042-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 490
Nature of Suit: Cable/ Satellite TV
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

1 

3:14-CV-01042-LAB (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 

J & J SPORTS PRODUCTIONS, INC., 

Plaintiff,

v. 

MARTINEZ ET AL., 

Defendant.

 Case No.: 3:14-CV-01042-LAB (WVG) 

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 

ENFORCE SETTLEMENT 

AGREEMENT AND AWARD OF 

ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS 

[DOC. NO. 22] 

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff J & J Sports Productions, Inc.’s (“Plaintiff”) 

Motion to Enforce the Settlement Agreement. (Doc. No. 22.) For the reasons set forth 

below, Plaintiff’s Motion is GRANTED and the Clerk of this Court shall ENTER

JUDGMENT in favor of Plaintiff in the amount of $3,240.00. 

I. BACKGROUND 

On April 25, 2014, Plaintiff filed a Complaint in this Court against Defendants Rosa 

I. Martinez and Jose Gabriel Martinez, individually and d/b/a Mariscos El Zurdo 

(“Defendants”). On December 3, 2014, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Settlement, stating that 

the parties had settled all claims in their entirety. (Doc. No. 15.) On December 12, 2014, 

Plaintiff forwarded a Release and Stipulation of Dismissal to Defense counsel. (Doc. No. 

22 at 3.) Defense counsel executed the Release documents. (Doc. No. 22 at 3.) 

Case 3:14-cv-01042-LAB-WVG Document 30 Filed 04/25/16 Page 1 of 6
2 

3:14-CV-01042-LAB (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

On March 2, 2015, the parties filed a First Amended Joint Motion to Dismiss 

Plaintiff’s Complaint against Defendants. (Doc. No. 20.) On March 5, 2015, the 

Honorable Larry A. Burns, United States District Judge, issued an Order of Dismissal. 

(Doc. No. 21.) In the Order dismissing the case with prejudice, the District Judge granted 

the parties’ joint request for this Court to retain jurisdiction over the case for 18 months 

from the date of the Order of Dismissal, for the purpose of interpreting and enforcing the 

parties’ settlement agreement.1

 Id. 

II. PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO ENFORCE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT 

Defendants were to pay a certain sum to Plaintiff pursuant to the terms of the settlement 

agreement. (Doc. No. 22 at 3; Doc. No. 29 at 2.) However, Defendants failed to remit all 

settlement payments as required, and currently owe Plaintiff $2,500.00 under the terms of 

the agreement. (Doc. No. 29 at 2.) Plaintiff’s demand for payment has been unsuccessful. 

(Doc. No. 29 at 2.) 

Additionally, pursuant to the express terms of the settlement agreement, the 

prevailing party shall be entitled to attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in connection with 

enforcing the settlement agreement. (Doc. No. 29 at 2.) Specifically, the settlement 

agreement provides: 

If any dispute arises relating to this Release and any Party brings an action to 

enforce its rights under it, then, in addition to such other relief as may be 

awarded, the prevailing Party shall be entitled to reasonable attorneys’ fees 

and costs incurred in connection with such proceedings. 

(Doc. No. 29 at 2.) 

On February 23, 2016, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion to Enforce the Settlement 

Agreement (“Motion”). (Doc. No. 22.) Defendants did not file an opposition. In the 

Motion, Plaintiff requests that this Court grant Plaintiff’s Motion and enter judgment 

                                                                

1 In their First Amended Joint Motion to Dismiss, the parties stipulated that this Court shall 

retain jurisdiction over this action for a period of 18 months from the order of dismissal for 

the limited purpose of enforcing the settlement reached by the parties. (Doc. No. 20 at 1.) 

Case 3:14-cv-01042-LAB-WVG Document 30 Filed 04/25/16 Page 2 of 6
3 

3:14-CV-01042-LAB (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

against Defendants in the amount of $5,000.00. (Doc. No. 22 at 5.) Plaintiff also requests 

that the Court allow it to file a petition for attorneys’ fees and costs as specifically provided 

for by the terms of the agreement. (Doc. No. 22 at 5.) 

This Court held two telephonic Status Conferences with counsel for all parties on 

March 7, 2016 and March 17, 2016, to discuss Plaintiff’s Motion. On March 17, 2016, the 

Court issued a briefing schedule and ordered Plaintiff to file a statement of accounting for 

the total judgment past due under the settlement agreement, including a statement of fees 

and costs incurred to enforce the agreement. (Doc. No. 22 at 1.). The Court allowed 

Defendants to file any objections to Plaintiff’s statement of accounting by April 4, 2016. 

Id. at 2. The Court informed the parties that if Defendants failed to file any objections, the 

Court would rule on Plaintiff’s Motion. Id. 

On March 31, 2016, at the order of this Court, Plaintiff filed an itemized computation 

of attorneys’ fees and costs incurred from February 23, 2016 through March 29, 2016. 

(Doc. No. 29 at 2.) In its itemized computation, Plaintiff asks this Court to enter judgment 

in Plaintiff’s favor for the total sum of $3,240.00, comprised of $2,500.00 due to Plaintiff 

under the terms of the settlement agreement, and $740.00 in attorneys’ fees and costs. 

Defendants did not file any objections. 

III. DISCUSSION 

“It is well settled that a district court has the equitable power to enforce summarily 

an agreement to settle a case pending before it.” Facebook, Inc. v. ConnectU, Inc., 2008 

WL 8820476, at *2 (N.D.Cal. Jun. 25, 2008) (quoting Callie v. Near, 829 F.2d 888, 890 

(9th Cir. 1987)). “Once a settlement has been reached in a pending action, any party to the 

agreement may bring a motion to enforce it.” Id. at *4 (citing Doi v. Halekulani Corp., 276 

F.3d 1131, 1135 (9th Cir. 2002)). “[T]he court’s enforcement powers include the inherent 

authority to order a party’s specific performance of acts required by the settlement 

agreement and to award damages or other sanctions for noncompliance.” Id. (citing TNT 

Mktg., Inc. v. Agresti, 796 F.2d 276, 278 9th Cir. 1986)); Makua v. Panetta, 2012 WL 

2370620, at *2 (D.Hawai’i Feb.28, 2012) (“A breach or violation of a settlement agreement 

Case 3:14-cv-01042-LAB-WVG Document 30 Filed 04/25/16 Page 3 of 6
4 

3:14-CV-01042-LAB (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

entitles the non-breaching party to specific performance or an award of unliquidated 

damages, as appropriate.”). 

“The construction of settlement agreements are governed by principles of local law 

which apply to interpretation of contracts generally.” Jeff D. v. Andrus, 899 F.2d 753, 

759–60 (9th Cir. 1990). As applicable here, “California has a strong policy in favor of 

enforcing settlement agreements.” Facebook, 2008 WL 8820476, at *4 (citing Osumi v. 

Sutton, 151 Cal.App.4th 1355, 1357, 60 Cal.Rptr.3d 693 (2007)). California law provides: 

If parties to pending litigation stipulate, in a writing signed by the parties 

outside the presence of the court or orally before the court, for settlement of 

the case, or part thereof, the court, upon motion, may enter judgment pursuant 

to the terms of the settlement. 

Id. (quoting Cal.Civ.Proc.Code § 664.6). See Scott v. Napolitano, 2012 WL 2836186 

(S.D.Cal. Jul. 10, 2010) (enforcing signed settlement agreement as complete and binding 

under California law); Bryant v. Amtrak, 2011 WL 291233 (S.D.Cal. Jan.26, 2011) (same). 

Further, “a settlement agreement ‘must be interpreted as to give effect to the mutual 

intention of the parties as it existed at the time of contracting.’” Id. (quoting Roden v. 

Bergen Brunswig Corp., 107 Cal.App.4th 620, 625, 132 Cal.Rptr.2d 549 (2003)); see also 

Cal. Civ.Code, § 1636. “When the agreement is in writing, ‘the intention ... is to be 

ascertained from the writing alone, if possible.’” Id. (quoting Brinton v. Bankers Pension 

Serv., Inc., 76 Cal.App.4th 550, 559, 90 Cal.Rptr.2d 469 (1999); see Cal. Civ.Code § 1639. 

Though “[a] settlement agreement, like any other contract, is unenforceable if the parties 

fail to agree on a material term or if a material term is not reasonably certain,” Id. (quoting 

Lindsay v. Lewandowski, 139 Cal.App.4th 1618, 1622, 43 Cal.Rptr.3d 846 (2006)), 

“courts will not set aside contracts for mere subjective misinterpretation.” Id. (quoting 

Hedging Concepts, Inc. v. First Alliance Mortgage Co., 41 Cal.App.4th 1410, 1421, 49 

Cal.Rptr.2d 191 (1996)). 

 In the Ninth Circuit, courts can retain ancillary jurisdiction over settlement 

agreements in cases dismissed with prejudice, provided that the parties consent and the 

Case 3:14-cv-01042-LAB-WVG Document 30 Filed 04/25/16 Page 4 of 6
5 

3:14-CV-01042-LAB (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

retention of jurisdictions is in the order of dismissal. See K.C. Torlakson, 762 F.3d 963, 

967 (9th Cir. 2014). 

Here, Defendants, by and through counsel, acknowledged that they fully understood 

the terms of the settlement and agreed to be bound by those terms. Defendants raise no 

objection to the agreement’s existence or terms. Defendants have not asserted duress, 

fraud, or any other challenge to the agreement’s validity or enforceability. Rather, 

Defendants simply failed to perform. 

On March 5, 2015, the District Judge dismissed this case with prejudice and expressly 

ordered, pursuant to the parties’ joint request, that this Court shall retain jurisdiction over 

the settlement for 18 months from the date of the Order of Dismissal. Therefore, this Court 

has jurisdiction to rule on Plaintiff’s Motion. 

IV. CONCLUSION 

The Court finds that the settlement agreement is complete and binding, Defendants 

have failed to perform as promised pursuant to the terms of the agreement, and Defendants 

have failed to assert any basis for denying enforcement. The Court also finds that 

Plaintiff’s fees and costs incurred to enforce the settlement are reasonable and fair. The 

Court hereby GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion to Enforce the Settlement Agreement. The 

Clerk of this Court shall ENTER JUDGMENT in favor of Plaintiff in the amount of 

$3,240.00 

Defendants are ORDERED to pay the following amount to Plaintiff by May 25, 

2016: 

// 

// 

// 

// 

// 

// 

// 

Case 3:14-cv-01042-LAB-WVG Document 30 Filed 04/25/16 Page 5 of 6
6 

3:14-CV-01042-LAB (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

a. Damages due Plaintiff: $2,500.00 

b. Attorneys’ fees: $740.00 

c. Costs: $0.00 

Total: $3,240.00 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: April 25, 2016 

Case 3:14-cv-01042-LAB-WVG Document 30 Filed 04/25/16 Page 6 of 6