Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_13-cv-01951/USCOURTS-cand-4_13-cv-01951-12/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

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

EUREKA DIVISION

NATHAN WENBERG,

Plaintiff,

v.

P. DELVILLAR, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 13-cv-01951-SBA (NJV)

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 

RE DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO 

ENFORCE SETTLEMENT

Re: Dkt. No. 75

Senior District Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong has referred Defendant's Motion to 

Enforce Settlement Agreement to the undersigned for a report and recommendation. (Doc. 80.) 

For the reasons stated below, the court recommends that Senior Judge Armstrong grant 

Defendant's motion.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Nathan Wenberg, acting pro se, and Defendant Delvillar, represented by Defense 

Counsel Susan Coleman, appeared at a settlement conference before the undersigned on July 27, 

2015. (Doc. 70.) Plaintiff Wenberg appeared by telephone and Defense Counsel Coleman, along 

with CDCR Staff Counsel Christina Johansen, appeared in person. An agreement was reached at 

the settlement conference whereby Plaintiff Wenberg agreed to dismiss his case against Defendant 

in exchange for the sum of $7,250. See Doc. 75-1, Decl. of Susan E. Coleman, para. 5. The court 

recorded the terms of the settlement agreement as follows:

Judge Vadas: All right. It is my understanding that the parties have reached a resolution, 

is that correct, Ms. Coleman?

Coleman: Yes, your Honor.

Case 4:13-cv-01951-SBA Document 81 Filed 01/22/16 Page 1 of 4
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

Judge Vadas: All right. It is my understanding that for the sum of $7,250 paid to Mr. 

Wenberg, Mr. Wenberg will dismiss his suit against the State of California and Officer 

Delvillar in this action in total. Is that correct, Mr. Wenberg?

Wenberg: Yes, your Honor.

Doc. 75-1, Ex. A. 

After the settlement conference, Defense Counsel Coleman sent plaintiff a Settlement

Agreement and Release, a Payee Data form, and a Stipulation of Voluntary Dismissal, 

memorializing the terms of the settlement on which the parties had agreed. On August 25, 2015, 

just before a scheduled status conference regarding the settlement, Defense Counsel Coleman

received a note from Plaintiff, sent by the Litigation Coordinator at Salinas Valley State Prison. 

Doc. 75-1, Declar. of Susan E. Coleman, para. 8-9. Attached as Exhibit D to Coleman's 

Declaration is a copy of the note she received from Plaintiff Wenberg. It reads as follows:

All Medical Issues that were agreed upon during previous settlement hearing where [sic] 

left out & Defendant was to pay/payback all fees & costs that I had to incumber [sic] 

during my process of this 1983 & I was under the impression that Defendants would be 

paying the restitution fine sepret [sic] from the $7250.00.

The note is signed "Wenberg T.94174."

On August 27, 2015, Plaintiff filed a request for judicial notice regarding the settlement 

conference in which he states in part:

At said conference, an agreement was reached between parties that stipulated:

1) That Plaintiff's entire restitution obligations to and for the state of California and any 

nexus of said restitution be completely satisfied;

2) and that Plaintiff would receive $7,000.00;

3) and that Plaintiff would receive specific medical treatment to be outlined in the final

settlement agreement inter alia. 

Doc. 72.

//

Case 4:13-cv-01951-SBA Document 81 Filed 01/22/16 Page 2 of 4
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

On September 28, 2015, Defendant filed the Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement now 

pending before the court. (Doc. 75.) Plaintiff opposes the Motion. (Doc. 76.) 

DISCUSSION

The court held a hearing on Defendant's Motion on December 8, 2015. (Doc. 79.) At the 

hearing, the court reviewed the terms of the settlement agreement with the parties and confirmed 

that the terms were as stated on the record on July 27, 2015, and did not include the further terms 

that Plaintiff now seeks. (Id., FTR Time 2:04-2:29.) 

A district court has inherent authority to enforce a settlement agreement in a case pending 

before it. TNT Marketing, Inc. v. Agresti, 796 F.2d 276, 278 (9th Cir. 1986). The district court

has authority to award damages for failure to comply with the settlement agreement, and breach of 

the agreement entitles the nonbreaching party to specific performance or an award of damages 

against the party in breach. Id. 

In order to be enforced, the settlement agreement must meet two requirements. First, the 

agreement must be complete. Callie v. Near, 829, F.2d 888, 890 (9th Cir. 1987). Second, both 

parties must have either agreed to the terms of the settlement or authorized their respective counsel 

to settle the dispute. Harrop v. Western Airlines, Inc., 550 F.2d 1143, 1144-45 (9th Cr. 1977).

Both of these requirements are met in the present case.

At the motion hearing on December 8, 2015, the court found that Plaintiff would not agree 

to comply with the terms of the settlement, and returned the matter to the district judge for 

enforcement. (Doc. 79.) Under the authority set forth above, Defendant, the nonbreaching party, 

is entitled to specific performance of the settlement agreement.

Accordingly, the court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that Senior District Judge Armstrong 

GRANT Defendant's motion for enforcement of the settlement.

Any party may file objections to this report and recommendation with the district judge 

within 14 days after being served with a copy. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); 

Civ. L.R. 72-3. Failure to file an objection may waive the right to review of the issue in the 

district court.

Case 4:13-cv-01951-SBA Document 81 Filed 01/22/16 Page 3 of 4
4

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

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 22, 2016

______________________________________

NANDOR J. VADAS

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 4:13-cv-01951-SBA Document 81 Filed 01/22/16 Page 4 of 4