Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-01753/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-01753-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:2000e Job Discrimination (Employment)

---

ORDER (No. 3:15-cv-01753-LB)

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 Francisco Division

ANTHONY NUÑO,

Plaintiff,

v.

RICHARD COLLINS, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 3:15-cv-01753-LB

ORDER DENYING THE PLAINTIFF'S 

MOTION TO AMEND SETTLEMENT 

AGREEMENT AND GRANTING THE 

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO ENFORCE 

SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

Re: ECF Nos. 34 and 37

INTRODUCTION

The plaintiff Anthony Nuño is a professor at California State University, Bakersfield (“CSU”). 

(Joint Statement, ECF No. 24 at 2.1) He sued the defendants Richard Collins, Teresa Fernandez, 

Jose Reyna, and CSU for employment discrimination and retaliation. (Complaint, ECF No. 1 at 1.) 

The parties settled the dispute and agreed to settlement terms on the record. (Minute Entry, ECF 

No. 31; Transcript, ECF No. 33.) Mr. Nuño now seeks to amend the settlement agreement; the 

defendants seek to enforce it. (Motions, ECF Nos. 34 and 37.)

The settlement on the record was complete, and the parties agreed to it. The court thus denies 

Mr. Nuño’s motion and grants the defendants’ motion to enforce the agreement.

 

1 Citations are to the Electronic Case File (“ECF”); pin cites are to the ECF-generated page 

numbers at the tops of documents. The court finds the matter suitable for determination without 

oral argument under Civil Local Rule 7-1(b) and vacates the February 25, 2016, hearing.

Case 3:15-cv-01753-LB Document 41 Filed 02/08/16 Page 1 of 5
ORDER (No. 3:15-cv-01753-LB) 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

STATEMENT

In April 2015, Mr. Nuño sued the defendants for employment discrimination and retaliation

based on his race, national origin, sex, and sexual orientation in violation of Title VII of the Civil 

Rights Act of 1964. (Complaint, ECF No. 1 at 2.) The defendants answered. (Answer, ECF No. 8.) 

The case was referred to Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero for a settlement conference; he held a 

settlement conference on December 10, 2015, that lasted for three hours and fifteen minutes. 

(Minute Entries, ECF Nos. 28, 31.) At the conference, the parties agreed to settlement terms on the

record. (Transcript, ECF No. 33.)

After the clerk called the case, Judge Spero told the parties that he would recite the terms of 

the settlement and then would ask counsel and Mr. Nuño whether he recited them accurately. 

(Transcript, ECF No. 2.) He then told the parties, “Once I’ve confirmed that I’ve done it 

accurately, then I’ll ask each side whether they agree to the settlement. Once everyone’s agreed to 

the settlement, it’s a final, binding settlement today, in accordance with its terms.” (Id. at 2-3.) He 

encouraged them to memorialize the terms in a written agreement but emphasized that “if for any 

reason – or for no reason – you are unsuccessful in memorializing the agreement in a written 

agreement, this deal that you put on the record today is still final and binding.” (Id. at 3.)

Judge Spero then recited the following terms: 1) CSU will pay Mr. Nuño $5,000; 2) Mr. Nuño 

will release “any and all claims, known or unknown, whether at law, administration, 

administrative, or contractual” to the date of settlement; 3) the parties waive California Civil Code 

Section 1542; 4) the case will be dismissed with prejudice; 5) the parties will pay their own 

attorney’s fees and costs; and 6) Mr. Nuño will withdraw the pending EEOC charge against the 

defendants, notifying CSU in writing when such withdrawal is complete. (Id. at 4.) Both parties 

agreed that these were the accurate terms of the settlement, and both parties accepted the terms of 

the settlement. (Id. at 4-6.) Judge Spero’s colloquy with Mr. Nuño is as follows:

THE COURT: And Mr. Nuño, have I accurately set forth the terms of the settlement, sir?

MR. NUNO: Yes, Your Honor.

THE COURT: . . . Mr. Nuño, have you heard and understood the terms of the settlement 

that I just recited?

Case 3:15-cv-01753-LB Document 41 Filed 02/08/16 Page 2 of 5
ORDER (No. 3:15-cv-01753-LB) 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

MR. NUNO: Yes, Your honor.

THE COURT: And do you agree to the terms of the settlement, sir?

MR. NUNO: Yes, I do.

Judge Spero then concluded, “Thank you all very much. You have a deal.” (Id. at 6.)

On January 7, 2016, Mr. Nuño filed a motion to amend the settlement agreement, raising four 

contentions. (Motion to Amend, ECF No. 34.) First, he says that he was not allowed to provide, 

and thus Judge Spero did not consider, information relating to his medical conditions. (Id. at 3.) 

Second, his medical conditions and medications impaired his judgment and rendered him unable 

“to contest and challenge provisions of [the] [s]ettlement [a]greement.” (Id.) Third, he lacked legal 

counsel to advise on the terms of the agreement. (Id.) And fourth, Judge Spero did not “properly 

explain that the [s]ettlement [a]greement was final and binding.” (Id.) Mr. Nuño seeks “an 

extension to submit medical information regarding medical conditions and medical treatment and 

therapies in progress.” (Id.)

On January 20, 2016, the defendants opposed Mr. Nuño’s motion and also moved to enforce 

the settlement agreement. (Opposition; Motion to Enforce, ECF No. 37.) Mr. Nuño’s opposition 

was due February 3, 2016. (See Docket Entry, ECF No. 37.) He did not file an opposition.

ANALYSIS

Because of “the high judicial favor accorded the voluntary settlement of disputes,” a “trial 

court has power to summarily enforce on motion a settlement agreement entered into by the 

litigants while the litigation is pending before it.” In re City Equities Anaheim, Ltd. v. Lincoln 

Plaza Dev. Co., 22 F.3d 954, 957 (9th Cir. 1994) (quotations omitted); see Callie v. Near, 829

F.2d 888, 890 (9th Cir. 1987). To be enforced, a settlement agreement must meet two 

requirements. First, it must be a “complete agreement.” Maynard v. City of San Jose, 37 F.3d 

1396, 1401 (9th Cir. 1994); see Callie, 829 F.2d at 890. Second, both parties must have either 

agreed to the terms of the settlement or authorized their respective counsel to settle the dispute. 

See Harrop v. Western Airlines, Inc., 550 F.2d 1143, 1144-45 (9th Cir. 1977).

“A settlement agreement is treated as any other contract for purposes of interpretation.” United 

Commercial Ins. Serv., Inc. v. Paymaster Corp., 962 F.2d 853, 856 (9th Cir. 1992). Accordingly, 

Case 3:15-cv-01753-LB Document 41 Filed 02/08/16 Page 3 of 5
ORDER (No. 3:15-cv-01753-LB) 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

“[t]he construction and enforcement of settlement agreements are governed by principles of local 

law which apply to interpretation of contracts generally.” Id. (quotation omitted). “This is true 

even though the underlying cause of action is federal.” Id. (citations omitted). “Under California 

law, the intent of the parties determines the meaning of the contract. The relevant intent is 

‘objective’ – that is, the intent manifested in the agreement and by surrounding conduct – rather 

than the subjective beliefs of the parties. For this reason, the true intent of a party is irrelevant if it 

is unexpressed.” Id. (citations omitted).

Here, the parties reached a complete settlement during their settlement conference with Judge 

Spero. Judge Spero recited each term in open court, and the parties confirmed that he recited the 

terms accurately. Judge Spero explained that if the parties accepted the terms, the agreement was 

“a final, binding settlement.” (Transcript, ECF No. 33 at 3.) He explained that the deal “put on the 

record today is still finding and binding” even if the parties were “unsuccessful in memoralizing 

the settlement in a written agreement.” (Id.) The result is that the parties’ settlement agreement is 

binding and enforceable. See Doe v. Halekulani Corp., 276 F.3d 1131, 1138 (9th Cir. 2002) (citing 

and quoting cases noting that the agreement is binding “even if a party has a change of heart after 

[he] agreed to its terms [on the record] but before the terms are reduced to writing.” Id. (citations 

and quotations omitted); accord Dacanay v. Mendoza, 573 F.2d 1075, 1078 (9th Cir. 1978).

Mr. Nuño’s contentions do not change this outcome. First, he says that Judge Spero did not 

explain that the settlement agreement was final and binding. The record shows that Judge Spero 

explained, and Mr. Nuño knew, that the agreement was binding and enforceable. Second, Mr. 

Nuño contends that his medical condition and medications impaired his judgment. But his 

responses on the record show his understanding of the settlement terms and his agreement to them. 

The court’s own experience with Mr. Nuño gives context to this observation; the litigation against 

his employer was stressful, but (as one might expect of a college professor) Mr. Nuño handled his 

case appropriately. Third, whatever other information that Mr. Nuño might have given Judge 

Spero is not relevant. The issue here whether he agreed to the terms of the settlement. He did. And 

once both parties agreed, the agreement is binding and enforceable. Fourth, and similarly, that Mr. 

Nuño lacked an attorney is not relevant. Again, the issue is only whether he understood and 

Case 3:15-cv-01753-LB Document 41 Filed 02/08/16 Page 4 of 5
ORDER (No. 3:15-cv-01753-LB) 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

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

accepted the terms of the settlement. 

CONCLUSION

The settlement was complete, the parties accepted its terms, and it is binding on them and 

enforceable against Mr. Nuño. The court denies Mr. Nuño’s motion to amend and grants the 

defendants’ motion to enforce the settlement agreement. This disposes of ECF Nos. 34 and 37.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 8, 2016 ______________________________________

LAUREL BEELER

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:15-cv-01753-LB Document 41 Filed 02/08/16 Page 5 of 5