Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-01991/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-01991-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 35:271 Patent Infringement

---

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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARVIN L. NIES, 

Plaintiff,

v.

BRIAN DICIANO, TEMO GONZALEZ,

D&G FARMS, and DOES 1-10,

Defendants.

CIV-S-03-1991 DFL GGH 

MEMORANDUM OF OPINION

AND ORDER

Plaintiff Martin Nies seeks enforcement of a settlement

agreement and to recover $3,000 in sanctions against defendants

Brian DiCiano and Temo Gonzalez (collectively “defendants”). For

the reasons set forth below, the court holds that defendants are

jointly and severally liable to pay Nies $15,000 and awards Nies

$2,500 in sanctions against Gonzalez. 

I.

This action arises out of the alleged improper use of a

patented tree. On August 3, 2005, after months of negotiations

between the parties, defendants’ counsel contacted Nies’s counsel

Case 2:03-cv-01991-DFL-GGH Document 30 Filed 12/21/05 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

2

and offered to settle the case for $15,000. (Pl.’s Mot. at 2.) 

Plaintiff accepted the offer. (Id.) However, defendants refused

to execute the written settlement agreement. (Id.) 

Nies contends that the agreement is binding on defendants

because: (1) DiCiano admitted that defendants authorized their

attorney to offer to settle the matter for $15,000 under the

terms contained in the written agreement; and (2) DiCiano

contacted Nies’s counsel and informed her that “he was agreeable

to the settlement.” (Mendoza Decl. ¶ 14.) 

At oral argument, the court heard sworn testimony from

DiCiano. DiCiano stated that after conferring with Gonzalez and

receiving Gonzalez’s approval, he authorized defendants’ counsel

to make the settlement offer. He also stated that he had offered

to pay Nies half of the settlement amount. Although Gonzalez

received notice of the court’s warning that his failure to appear

at the hearing or oppose the motion could result in an award of

sanctions against him, Gonzalez did not oppose the motion or

appear at the hearing. 

II.

A. Motion to Enforce Settlement

“It is well settled that a District Court has the equitable

power to enforce summarily an agreement to settle a case pending

before it.” Callie v. Near, 829 F.2d 888, 890 (9th Cir. 1987). 

However, courts can only enforce agreements that have no disputed

terms. Id. In addition, if an attorney agrees to a settlement

on behalf of a client, the agreement is only binding on the

Case 2:03-cv-01991-DFL-GGH Document 30 Filed 12/21/05 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

 There are certain specific exceptions to this rule, 1

however, none are applicable here. See Cal Corp. Code §

16306(a)-(c).

Because Diciano had authority to commit the partnership, it

was not necessary for Gonzalez to expressly agree to the

settlement. Nevertheless, as discussed in the preceding section,

the court finds that Gonzalez did give his consent to the

settlement.

3

client if the attorney had the client’s express permission to

enter into the agreement. Harrop v. Western Airlines, Inc., 550

F.2d 1143, 1144-45 (9th Cir. 1977) (citations omitted). 

No party contests the existence or terms of the settlement

agreement. In addition, the court has received sworn testimony

indicating that defendants’ counsel was authorized to make the

settlement offer. The court finds that Diciano expressly

authorized the settlement on his own behalf, on behalf of the

partnership, and on Gonzalez’s specific authorization. 

Accordingly, the settlement agreement will be enforced.

B. Liability

DiCiano and Gonzalez executed a general partnership

agreement on October 1, 2000. According to DiCiano and

defendants’ counsel, DiCiano expressly authorized defendants’

counsel to make the settlement offer on behalf of the

partnership. Because DiCiano is a general partner in the

partnership, the settlement agreement is binding on the

partnership. 

In California, general partners are jointly and severally

liable for all debts and obligations of a partnership. Cal. 1

Corp. Code § 16306; Kadota Fig Ass’n of Producers v. Case-Swayne

Case 2:03-cv-01991-DFL-GGH Document 30 Filed 12/21/05 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

4

Co., 73 Cal.App.2d 796, 801 (1941). Therefore, Nies may collect

the entire amount of the settlement agreement from DiCiano or

Gonzalez individually, or he may apportion the award between them

as he sees fit. 

However, a partner who pays more than his proportional share

of an award is generally entitled to contribution from the other

partners. Cal. Corp. Code § 16401; Great Western Bank v. Kong,

90 Cal.App.4th 28, 33 (2001). The purpose of this rule is to

ensure that all partners bear the partnership’s burdens equally. 

Several California statutes outline the process for compelling

such contribution through the courts. See, e.g., Cal. Civ. Proc.

Code §§ 881-883. Therefore, although Nies is entitled to recover

the entire award from either defendant, there is a wellestablished process in place to ensure that the debts of the

partnership are spread equally between the partners.

C. Sanctions

Nies requests an award of $3,000 in sanctions. The court

possesses the inherent authority to sanction a party or an

attorney. Fink v. Gomez, 239 F.3d 989 (9th Cir. 1999). The

purpose of awarding sanctions is to “make the prevailing party

whole for the expenses caused by his opponent’s obstinacy.” 

Hutto v. Finney, 437 U.S. 678, 690 n.14, 98 S.Ct. 2565 (1978). 

Before granting a request for sanctions, the court must make

a finding of “bad faith.” Gomez v. Vernon, 255 F.3d 1118, 1134

(9th Cir. 2001). A party “shows bad faith by delaying or

disrupting the litigation.” Hutto v. Finney, 437 U.S. 678, 690

Case 2:03-cv-01991-DFL-GGH Document 30 Filed 12/21/05 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

 Nies moved for $3,000 in attorney’s fees. However, $500 2

of this amount was for the anticipated expense of filing a reply

to defendants’ opposition. Because defendants did not file an

opposition, Nies did not incur this expense.

 The record does not support a finding that DiCiano acted 3

in bad faith.

5

n.14, 98 S.Ct. 2565 (1978). 

The court finds that Gonzalez has acted in bad faith. The

record reveals that all parties were amenable to the settlement

agreement when defendants’ counsel made the offer to Nies. 

However, after Nies accepted the offer, Gonzalez decided to

withhold his consent. Since then, he has refused to respond to

Nies, Diciano, or his attorney. His conduct forced Nies to file

this action and incur $2,500 in additional attorney fees.2

Therefore, the court awards Nies $2,500 in sanctions to be paid

by Gonzalez individually.3

III.

For the reasons stated above, the court GRANTS the motion to

enforce the settlement agreement and awards Nies $2,500 in

sanctions payable by Gonzalez. The Clerk shall enter judgment.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 12/20/2005

DAVID F. LEVI

United States District Judge

Case 2:03-cv-01991-DFL-GGH Document 30 Filed 12/21/05 Page 5 of 5