Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-04891/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-04891-10/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 423
Nature of Suit: Bankruptcy Withdrawal 28 USC 157
Cause of Action: 28:0157 Motion for Withdrawal of Reference

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

E. LYNN SCHOENMANN,

Plaintiff,

v.

JAMES A. TORCHIA, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 14-cv-04891-MMC 

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S 

MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANT 

CELELLO TO EXECUTE 

SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT; 

VACATING HEARING

Re: Dkt. No. 124

Before the Court is plaintiff Trustee E. Lynn Schoenmann's ("Trustee") "Motion to 

Compel Def. Celello Execution of Settlement Agreement," filed July 25, 2016. Defendant 

Marc A. Celello ("Celello") has filed opposition, to which the Trustee has replied. Having 

read and considered the papers filed in support of and in opposition to the motion, the 

Court deems the matter suitable for decision on the parties' respective written 

submissions, VACATES the hearing scheduled for September 2, 2016, and rules as 

follows.

On April 15, 2016, all parties to the above-titled action, including the Trustee and 

Celello, filed a document titled "Joint Notice of Settlement," in which they informed the 

Court they had "reached a settlement of all claims asserted in this action," and that the 

parties had, inter alia, agreed to the following term thereof: "Defendants will pay $55,000 

to Synergy Acceptance Corporation's bankruptcy estate within ten (10) days of the 

Bankruptcy Court's approval of the settlement agreement." (See Joint Notice of 

Settlement, filed April 15, 2016.)

By the instant motion to compel, the Trustee seeks an order requiring Celello to 

"execute a settlement agreement agreed to and represented to the Court" (see Pl.'s Mot. 

Case 3:14-cv-04891-MMC Document 128 Filed 08/31/16 Page 1 of 2
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

at 2:3-4), i.e., an order requiring Celello to sign a written agreement that, according to the 

Trustee, memorializes the settlement the parties reached in April 2016 (see Kieve Decl.

¶ 5, Ex. A). In support thereof, however, the Trustee cites to no authority holding a 

district court can essentially convert an oral settlement agreement into a written one.1

Accordingly, the Trustee's motion to compel is hereby DENIED.2

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 31, 2016

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

 

1

It is unclear from the Trustee's motion whether the Trustee, for purposes of 

enforcement, believes she needs a written agreement, or why the parties' Joint Notice of 

Settlement, which appears to set forth the terms of the instant agreement, would not 

constitute a sufficient writing, even if a writing were necessary.

2

The Court notes that both the Trustee and Celello, in their respective filings, cite 

various cases addressing the circumstances under which enforcement of a settlement 

agreement is proper. As the Court stated in its order of June 17, 2016, any issue as to 

the enforceability of the instant settlement agreement would appear to be premature, 

given the parties' stated intention to seek approval of said agreement from the 

Bankruptcy Court.

Case 3:14-cv-04891-MMC Document 128 Filed 08/31/16 Page 2 of 2