Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_16-cv-04392/USCOURTS-cand-5_16-cv-04392-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 446
Nature of Suit: Americans with Disabilities Act - Other
Cause of Action: 42:12101 Americans w/ Disabilities Act (ADA)

---

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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

MIKEL HARRIS,

Plaintiff,

v.

JT HOSPITALITY, INC., et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 16-cv-04392-BLF 

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND 

DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION TO ENFORCE SETTLEMENT 

AGREEMENT

[Re: ECF 71]

Plaintiff Mikel Harris filed a motion to enforce the Court Enforceable Settlement 

Agreement (“Settlement Agreement,” ECF 63) against Defendants JT Hospitality, Inc., dba Days 

Inn & Suites Santa Cruz, Pravin Patel and Naina Patel (the “Patels”). Mot., ECF 71. On May 10, 

2018, the Court held a hearing on the instant motion. Pravin Patel appeared late and Naina Patel 

was unable to personally appear due to an illness.1 Defendants’ counsel stated that opposing 

arguments have been presented in the Patels’ opposition brief and declaration.2 Upon considering 

the briefing, the Court rules as follows.

In the instant motion, Harris requests that the Court order Defendants to pay $85,000 to 

Harris pursuant to the Settlement Agreement and sanction Defendants in the amount of $1,000 for 

each day that they fail to pay the settlement amount. Id. at 1. Previously, the Court granted the 

parties’ request to retain jurisdiction to enforce the Settlement Agreement that was signed by 

Plaintiff Mikel Harris, and Defendants JT Hospitality, Inc., Pravin Patel, and Naina Patel. ECF 

 

1

The Court previously ordered the Patels to personally appear at the hearing. ECF 84, 85. Based 

on Pravin Patel’s late appearance and Naina Patel’s illness, the Court finds that the Patels did not 

fail to comply with the order.

2 Defendants’ counsel, Cris C. Vaughan, filed a motion to withdraw as counsel for the Patels due 

to irreconcilable differences. ECF 73. The Court addresses Mr. Vaughan’s motion to withdraw as 

counsel in a separate order.

Case 5:16-cv-04392-BLF Document 88 Filed 05/15/18 Page 1 of 3
2

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

Northern District of California

63.

Defendants Pravin Patel and Naina Patel filed an opposition. Opp’n, ECF 75. Their 

opposing arguments are set forth in the declaration of Pravin Patel which has been filed in support 

of the opposition. Patel Decl., ECF 75-1. The declaration provides that Pravin Patel and his wife, 

Naina Patel, operate their hotel previously known as “Days Inn and Suites Santa Cruz.” Id. ¶ 1. 

The declaration further states that enforcing the parties’ Settlement Agreement would be unfair 

because the Patels believe that the instant action was filed by Harris as retaliation for being 

removed from the Patels’ hotel when Harris did not pay for his room. Id. ¶¶ 2–8.

Harris filed a reply in response to the Patels’ opposition. Reply, ECF 76. As a preliminary 

issue, Harris objects to the declaration of Pravin Patel for being irrelevant, causing prejudice to the 

Court, being hearsay, and violating the parol evidence rule. Id. at 2–3. Harris further objects to the 

Patels’ opposition brief as violating Civil Local Rule 7-4(a) for not containing “a statement of the 

issues to be decided; a succinct statement of the relevant facts; and [a]rgument by the party, citing 

pertinent authorities.” Id. at 3 (alteration in original). However, Harris’ objections do not provide 

a sufficient basis to strike the Patels’ declaration or opposition for the following reasons.

First of all, the declaration is relevant because it pertains to reasons why the Patels believe 

that the settlement agreement should not be enforced. Also, consideration of the declaration is not 

prejudicial to the parties or the Court because doing so will not delay resolution of the instant 

motion. While Harris objects to the declaration as hearsay insofar as Pravin Patel speaks on behalf 

of his wife, the Court does not find that the declaration should be stricken because it is based on 

Pravin Patel’s own experience. Harris’ objection based on the parol evidence rule is misplaced 

because Pravin Patel does not contest the terms of the Settlement Agreement. Finally, to the

extent that the Patels’ opposition brief violated Civil Local Rule 7-4, the Court finds that a failure 

to strictly comply with Rule 7-4 does not prejudice Harris. In fact, Harris has fully responded to 

the Patels’ opposition. See Reply 3–4. For these reasons, the Court OVERRULES Harris’ 

objections.

The Court next turns to Harris’ arguments why the Court should enforce the Settlement 

Agreement. Harris argues that the existence and terms of the Settlement Agreement as well as the 

Case 5:16-cv-04392-BLF Document 88 Filed 05/15/18 Page 2 of 3
3

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

Northern District of California

parties’ intent are not in dispute. Reply 3. Harris further contends that there has been no mistake 

or fraud. Id. at 4. The Court agrees with Harris. While the Patels believe that enforcing the 

Settlement Agreement would be unfair, there is no dispute regarding the intent of the parties and 

the terms of the Settlement Agreement. Furthermore, the Patels have not shown that the parties 

signed the Settlement Agreement based on fraud or mistake. Callen v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 332 

U.S. 625, 630 (1948) (“One who attacks a settlement must bear the burden of showing that the 

contract he has made is tainted with invalidity, either by fraud practiced upon him or by a mutual 

mistake under which both parties acted.”). The mere fact that a signatory changed his or her mind 

believing that the settlement is unfair does not make a settlement agreement invalid. The Court 

therefore finds that the Settlement Agreement is enforceable and that a judgment may be entered. 

Doi v. Halekulani Corp., 276 F.3d 1131, 1136 (9th Cir. 2002) (affirming the district court’s entry 

of judgment in accordance with the court’s order compelling settlement) ; Bondanelli v. Ocean 

Park SRL, No. CV 12-7724, 2013 WL 12138983, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 12, 2013). As such, 

Harris’ motion to enforce the Court Enforceable Settlement Agreement is GRANTED. The Court 

will separately enter a judgment against Defendants.

Harris further requests that Defendants be sanctioned and that the Court order Defendants

to pay $1,000 for each day since the payment was due on February 27, 2018. Mot. 1; Reply 4. 

The Court declines Harris’ request because Defendants have not violated any court order. While 

the Court issued an order retaining jurisdiction to enforce the Settlement Agreement, the 

agreement itself is not a court issued order. As such, Harris’ request for sanctions is DENIED. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

(1) Plaintiff Harris’ motion to enforce the Court Enforceable Settlement Agreement is 

GRANTED. 

(2) Plaintiff Harris’ request for sanctions is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 15, 2018

______________________________________

BETH LABSON FREEMAN

United States District Judge

Case 5:16-cv-04392-BLF Document 88 Filed 05/15/18 Page 3 of 3