Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00855/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00855-9/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 15:1681 Fair Credit Reporting 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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LINDA D. MORIARITY,

Plaintiff,

v.

NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE, LLC,

and DOES 1-10,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:13-CV-855-SMS

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT 

DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO ENFORCE 

SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND 

TO IMPOSE SANCTIONS

(Doc. 46) 

This matter is before the Court on Defendant Nationstar Mortgage LLC’s “Motion to Enforce 

Settlement Agreement and for Sanctions Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1927.” Doc. 46. Plaintiff did not file 

an opposition to the motion. No hearing was held as the Court found the matter suitable for

submission on the papers. Local Rule 230(g); Doc. 47. For the following reasons, the motion is 

granted.

I. BACKBROUND

On November 26, 2014, Defendant filed a “Notice of Settlement of Entire Action,” 

informing the Court that Plaintiff had settled all claims against Defendant. Doc. 43. The parties 

fully executed a settlement agreement on December 15, 2014. Doc. 46, Ex. A. Under the

agreement, Plaintiff was to file a dismissal with prejudice within five business days of receiving the 

fully executed agreement and settlement check. Doc. 46, Ex. A. On December 31, 2014, Defendant

Case 1:13-cv-00855-SMS Document 48 Filed 07/31/15 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

2

sent Plaintiff a copy of the fully executed agreement and the $5,400.00 settlement check. Doc. 46, 

Ex. B. Plaintiff cashed or deposited the check on January 5, 2015, but did not file dismissal 

documents. Doc. 46, Ex. C. 

Thereafter, Defendant contacted Plaintiff on three separate occasions—January 27, March 4 

and April 22, 2015—requesting that Plaintiff file dismissal documents. Doc. 46, Exs. D-F. Plaintiff 

responded to the March 4, 2015 email, stating “she ‘ha[s] given it the same degree of priority of 

Defendant did in issuing the settlement check. It will happen soon.’ ” Doc. 46, Ex. 1. In its April 

22, 2015 email to Plaintiff, Defendant stated it would “move the court for an order enforcing the 

settlement agreement, dismissing the action, and for an order of attorneys’ fees for the costs of 

bringing the motion.” Doc. 46, Ex. F. Nearly seven months have passed since Plaintiff cashed or 

deposited the settlement check and no dismissal documents have been filed. 

II. DISCUSSION

A. Enforcement of Settlement Agreement

Defendant contends that Plaintiff’s failure to file dismissal documents violated the parties’

settlement agreement. Unable to obtain Plaintiff’s compliance, Defendant therefore requests that the 

Court enforce the agreement by dismissing the lawsuit with prejudice. Def.’s Br. 1, 3. “[I]t is now 

well established that the trial court has power to summarily enforce on motion a settlement 

agreement entered into by the litigants while the litigation is pending before it.” City of Equities 

Anaheim v. Lincoln Plaza Dev. Co. (In re City Equities Anaheim), 22 F.3d 954, 957 (9th Cir. 1994) 

(quotations and citation omitted). “The construction and enforcement of settlement agreements are 

governed by principles of local law which apply to interpretation of contracts generally.” United 

Com. Ins. Serv., Inc. v. Paymaster Corp., 962 F.2d 853, 856 (9th Cir. 1992). The Court therefore 

applies California contract law to resolve this issue. 

“[F]or acceptance of a proposal to result in the formation of a contract, the proposal must be 

sufficiently definite, or must call for such definite terms in the acceptance, that the performance 

Case 1:13-cv-00855-SMS Document 48 Filed 07/31/15 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

3

promised is reasonably certain. A proposal cannot be accepted so as to form a contract unless the 

terms of the contract are reasonably certain. [P] . . . The terms of a contract are reasonably certain if 

they provide a basis for determining the existence of a breach and for giving an appropriate remedy.”

Weddington Productions, Inc. v. Flick, 60 Cal.App.4th 793, 811 (1998) (quotations and citations 

omitted). Moreover, there must be consent, which is “[a]n essential element of any contract” and 

“[t]he consent must be mutual.” Id. (internal quotations and citations omitted). “The existence of 

mutual consent is determined by objective rather than subjective criteria, the test being what the 

outward manifestations of consent would lead a reasonable person to believe.” Id. (quotations and 

citation omitted). 

In this case, the requirements of an enforceable contract are present. First, the terms are 

sufficiently definite and reasonably certain. As stated, Plaintiff is to provide Defendant with a fully 

executed W-9 and dismiss the suit with prejudice within five business days of receiving $5,400.00

and the fully executed agreement from Defendant. Doc. 46, Ex. A. A confidentiality clause 

prohibits the parties from disclosing any information about the settlement unless one of the 

enumerated exceptions applies; and among the exceptions are to “obtain court approval for dismissal 

of the Action” and to “enforce this Agreement.” Doc. 46, Ex. A. 

Finally, the agreement explicit states, “the terms and the drafting of this Agreement have 

been by mutual agreement[.]” Doc. 46, Ex. A. This language, coupled with the parties’ signatures,

demonstrate their mutual consent to the agreement and its terms therein. Doc. 46, Ex. A; see Binder 

v. Aetna Life Ins. Co., 75 Cal.App.4th 832, 851(1999) (“[T]he outward manifestation or expression

of assent is controlling.”). Because we have here a valid contract and the parties have agreed to its 

terms, the Court may therefore enforce the agreement. 

B. Sanctions

Defendant contends Plaintiff’s delay in filing dismissal documents is unreasonable and 

Case 1:13-cv-00855-SMS Document 48 Filed 07/31/15 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

vexatious. It therefore requests the Court impose sanctions against Plaintiff for the attorneys’ fees 

expended in bringing this motion. Def.’s Br. 3-4. 

Section 1927 provides, “[a]ny attorney or other person admitted to conduct cases in any court 

of the United States or any Territory thereof who so multiplies the proceedings in any case 

unreasonably and vexatiously may be required by the court to satisfy personally the excess costs, 

expenses, and attorneys’ fees reasonably incurred because of such conduct.” 28 U.S.C. 1927 (2015). 

The imposition of § 1927 sanctions “requires a finding of subjective bad faith.” MGIC Indemnity 

Co. v. Moore, 952 F.2d 1120, 1122 (9th Cir. 1991). Even a pro se plaintiff may face such sanctions. 

Wages v. Internal Revenue Serv., 915 F.2d 1230, 1235-36 (9th Cir. 1990).

The facts of this case warrant the imposition of sanctions. Plaintiff cashed or deposited the 

settlement check from Defendant on January 5, 2015. Under the parties’ agreement, she was to then

file dismissal documents within five business days. But despite repeated requests from Defendant—

three emails—Plaintiff did not comply. Plaintiff even responded to Defendant’s March 4, 2015 

email and suggested that her delayed action was to reciprocate Defendant’s delay in issuing the 

settlement check. Now, nearly seven months after Plaintiff received her money, no dismissal 

documents have been filed. Defendant’s patience was not rewarded. 

Notwithstanding the fact that Defendant’s issuance of the check just two weeks after the 

parties executed the agreement did not amount to a delay, Plaintiff’s conduct and words reflect an 

intentional and unreasonable violation of the parties’ agreement. They show bad faith. Under the 

circumstances, the Court will therefore impose sanctions against Plaintiff for the attorneys’ fees 

Defendant expended in bringing this motion. 

Defendant requests $1,567.00 in attorneys’ fees. Def.’s Br. 4. This amount represents 

counsel’s billing rate of $285.00 per hour for all the actual and anticipated hours spent in connection 

with this motion. Because no opposition was filed which may have required a reply and the Court 

vacated the hearing, any time expended was limited to counsel’s preparation for the motion and 

Case 1:13-cv-00855-SMS Document 48 Filed 07/31/15 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

supporting documents. Doc. 47. The Court will therefore order that Plaintiff reimburse Defendant 

$855.00 ($285.00 x 3 hours) 1for the attorneys’ fees Defendant incurred in connection with this 

motion.

III. CONCLUSION

Defendant’s “Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement and for Sanctions Pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. 1927” is hereby granted. It is ordered that (1) this suit be dismissed with prejudice and 

(2) Plaintiff shall pay Defendant $855.00, by money order or cashier’s check, no later than August 

31, 2015. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 29, 2015 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

 1 Defendant’s counsel “spent 3.0 hours preparing the notice of motion, motion, memorandum of 

points and authorities, and declaration in support of Defendant’s motion to enforce the settlement 

agreement.” Doc. 46, Ex. 1. 

Case 1:13-cv-00855-SMS Document 48 Filed 07/31/15 Page 5 of 5