Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_02-cv-06583/USCOURTS-caed-1_02-cv-06583-88/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 470
Nature of Suit: Civil (Rico)
Cause of Action: 18:1961 Racketeering (RICO) 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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

This is a longstanding case. Broadly, Defendants loaned Plaintiffs money. Plaintiffs gave 

Defendants deeds of trust on several pieces of property. Plaintiffs fell behind on payments. 

Defendants initiated foreclosure proceedings. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants agreed to postpone 

the sale of the properties in exchange for consideration. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants broke 

this agreement immediately and auctioned off the properties in a trustee’s sale. Based on that 

conduct, Plaintiffs sued Defendants for fraud and breach of contract. 

The trial proceedings started on the morning of Tuesday, April 12, 2016. Before a jury 

could be selected, the parties settled the case. The settlement was put on the record. The relevant 

terms are:

Number 1. Plaintiffs shall dismiss this action with prejudice upon payment of 

$20,000 by defendants to plaintiffs or their assigns, which payment shall be made 

within 30 days and delivered to counsel for plaintiff[s].

Number 2. In the event payment is made within 30 days and plaintiffs fail to apply 

TERRY D. HAMILTON, et al.,

Plaintiffs

v.

HENRY W. WILMMS, et al.,

Defendants

CASE NO. 1:02-CV-6583 AWI SMS 

ORDER DISMISSING ACTION WITH 

PREJUDICE AND AWARDING 

ATTORNEY’S FEES TO DEFENDANTS 

Case 1:02-cv-06583-AWI-SMS Document 918 Filed 06/07/16 Page 1 of 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

2

to dismiss with prejudice, the defendants may apply ex parte for an order 

dismissing this action with prejudice.

Number 3. Both parties shall bear their own costs and fees in this action other than 

in the event an application is made to enforce this agreement. In that event, the

prevailing party in such a proceeding to enforce the settlement agreement shall be 

entitled to their reasonable attorney’s fees and costs.

Number 4. Upon payment of $20,000, the parties waive all claims and release on 

another and their agents and employees from all claims, known and unknown, and 

waive the provisions of California Civil Code section 1542.

Number 5. This Court retains jurisdiction to enforce the terms of this agreement.

Number 6. The parties agree to execute a written settlement agreement consistent 

with these terms, which agreement shall be prepared for counsel for defendants.

Number 7. In the event plaintiffs fail to execute the written settlement agreement 

and defendants have paid the $20,000 within 30 days, defendants may apply for an 

order dismissing the action with prejudice.

Number 8. Upon payment of the $20,000, the parties waive and release all appellate 

rights arising out of or related to this action or any orders or judgments entered 

therein.

Doc. 913, 13:25-15:5. Subsequently, the parties initially cooperated to fulfill the terms of the 

settlement. Plaintiffs’ counsel and Defendants’ counsel communicated back and forth and created 

a written draft agreement memorializing the content of the settlement agreement. See Doc. 915-3, 

Exs. A-C. However, when the written agreement was presented to Plaintiffs, they did not sign it. 

Doc. 915-3, Ex. E. Defendants sent a check for $20,000 made payable to Terry Hamilton and 

Sharon Hamilton on April 22, 2016; in the accompanying latter, Defendants made clear to if 

Plaintiffs did not dismiss this action with prejudice by April 25, 2016, Defendants would make a 

motion to dismiss this case with prejudice and seek attorney’s fees and costs pursuant to the terms 

of the settlement agreement. Doc. 915-3, Ex. F. Plaintiffs did not dismiss this case. On April 26, 

2016, Defendants filed an ex parte application to enforce the settlement agreement and for 

attorney’s fees associated with making the motion. Doc. 915. Defendants then modified their 

request to seek attorney’s fees only from Terry Hamilton and not from Sharon Hamilton. Doc. 

916. 

“[C]ourts have inherent power summarily to enforce a settlement agreement with respect to 

an action pending before it.” Dacanay v. Mendoza, 573 F.2d 1075, 1078 (9th Cir. 1978). The 

terms of the settlement were clearly stated in open court. Defendants had to prepare a written 

Case 1:02-cv-06583-AWI-SMS Document 918 Filed 06/07/16 Page 2 of 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

3

settlement agreement and pay Plaintiffs $20,000 within 30 days. Plaintiffs had to dismiss this case

after receiving the $20,000. Defendants have provided clear evidence that they have fulfilled the 

tasks the settlement agreement demanded of them. Defendants’ counsel has provided a 

declaration stating that a $20,000 check payable to Plaintiffs was given to Plaintiffs’ counsel and 

has provided a photocopy of that check. Doc. 915-2, 4:1-9; Doc. 915-3, Ex. F. Plaintiffs are 

supposed to dismiss this case with prejudice, but have failed to do so. Defendants’ request to 

enforce the settlement and dismiss this case is granted.

Defendants also request a total of $1,620 to compensate for the 8.0 hours of effort put into 

this motion. The terms of the settlement agreement permit Defendants to seek attorney’s fees and 

costs for making this motion. Defendants’ counsel, Don Pool, is a litigator with over 20 years of 

experience. Doc. 915-2, 5:1-4. Defendants request that his time be valued at the rate of $300 per 

hour. Additionally, Defendants request that the paralegal’s time be valued at $105 per hour. 

Based upon the prior survey of the fees in the Fresno Division and the court’s own knowledge, 

these are reasonable rates. See Ingram v. Oroudjian, 647 F.3d 925, 928 (9th Cir. 2011) 

(concluding “the district court did not abuse its discretion either by relying, in part, on its own 

knowledge and experience” to determine reasonable hourly rates); Silvester v. Harris, 2014 U.S. 

Dist. LEXIS 174366, *12 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 17, 2014) (“the hourly rates generally accepted in the 

Fresno Division for competent experienced attorneys is between $250 and $380.... reasonable 

hourly rate for paralegals in the Fresno Division is between $75.00 and $150.00 per hour”). 

Defendants requests fees for a total of 8.0 hours. Doc. 915-2, p.4. Mr. Pool spent 2.5 hours 

researching and drafting the motion and .5 hours communicating with clients. An additional 1.0 

hours was budgeted for participation in a hearing on the motion. As no hearing on this motion is 

being held, fees for that 1.0 hours of anticipated participation will be excised. A paralegal spent 

4.0 hours revising the brief, preparing the accompanying declaration, and gathering the exhibits. 

The total time spent on these tasks to date appears to be reasonable. Thus, $1,320 for 7.0 hours of 

work is awarded pursuant to the terms of the settlement agreement. 

Defendants’ motion to enforce the settlement agreement is GRANTED. This action is 

dismissed with prejudice. Defendants’ request for attorney’s fees and costs is GRANTED. A 

Case 1:02-cv-06583-AWI-SMS Document 918 Filed 06/07/16 Page 3 of 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

4

total of $1,320.00 is awarded to Defendants against Plaintiff Terry Hamilton. The Clerk of the 

Court is directed to close this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 6, 2016 

 SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:02-cv-06583-AWI-SMS Document 918 Filed 06/07/16 Page 4 of 4