Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-01109/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-01109-4/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Nathan Burnette
Defendant
County of Sacramento
Defendant
Martin Gasca
Plaintiff

Document Text:

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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

----oo0oo----

MARTIN GASCA, an individual,

Plaintiff,

v.

COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, a 

municipal corporation; 

OFFICER NATHAN BURNETTE; and 

DOES 2 through 25;

Defendants.

CIV. NO. 2:15-1109 WBS CKD

ORDER RE: MOTION TO ENFORCE 

SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

----oo0oo----

Plaintiff brought an action in the California Superior 

Court against the County of Sacramento for alleged police

brutality in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and state tort law. 

(See Notice of Removal Ex. A, Compl. at 1 (Docket No. 1).) The 

county removed the action to this court. (Notice of Removal.) 

After removal, plaintiff filed an amended complaint identifying

Case 2:15-cv-01109-WBS-CKD Document 28 Filed 10/14/16 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

27

28

2

Officer Nathan Burnette as a second defendant. (First Am. 

Compl.)

On May 25, 2016, defendants emailed plaintiff stating 

that they would be “willing to offer $10,000” to settle the case. 

(Decl. of Kelley Kern (“Kern Decl.”) Ex. A at 1 (Docket No. 25-

2).) The next day, plaintiff responded that he “is agreeable to 

accepting the terms of the proposed settlement.” (Id.) The 

parties filed a Notice of Settlement five days later. (See

Notice of Settlement (Docket No. 17); Kern Decl. Ex. B at 3.) 

The parties then performed due diligence on the terms of the 

agreement.1 (See Kern Decl. Ex. B at 1; id. Ex. C at 1-2; id.

Ex. D at 1-2.) On August 8, defendants forwarded a draft of the 

settlement agreement to plaintiff’s counsel for review. (Id. Ex. 

E at 1.) Plaintiff’s counsel responded, “This looks fine. I 

have forwarded to my client for signature.” (Id.)

Thereafter and at some point prior to September 12, 

plaintiff informed defendants that he would not be signing the 

settlement agreement. (Joint Status Report at 2 (Docket No. 

21).) Defendants now “move the court for an order enforcing the 

 

1 The agreement required that: (1) plaintiff “is not 

Medicare eligible”; (2) plaintiff “does not owe the County 

Department of Revenue Recovery or Child Support Departments any 

money”; (3) “County Risk Management [for Sacramento County] . . .

approve the payment”; and (4) plaintiff produce letters from the 

hospitals he attended stating how much each would each receive 

out of the settlement. (Kern Decl. Ex. A at 1.) The parties 

satisfied each of these conditions. (See id. Ex. B at 1

(confirming plaintiff is not Medicare eligible and has no liens 

with Sacramento County); id. Ex. C at 1 (stating that first 

hospital agrees to accept pro rata share); id. Ex. D at 1-2 

(attaching letter from second hospital); id. E (attaching 

settlement agreement for plaintiff’s signature after requesting 

approval from County Risk).)

Case 2:15-cv-01109-WBS-CKD Document 28 Filed 10/14/16 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

27

28

3

settlement agreement reached between Plaintiff and Defendants on 

May 26.”

2 (Defs.’ Mot. (Docket No. 25).) Pursuant to Local Rule 

230(c), plaintiff’s counsel filed a statement of non-opposition 

in response to defendants’ motion.3 (Statement of Non-Opp’n 

(“Non-Opp’n”) (Docket No. 26).)

It is “well established that the 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., 22 F.3d 954, 957 (9th Cir. 

1994) (quoting Autera v. Robinson, 419 F.2d 1197, 1200 (D.C. Cir.

1969)); see also Callie v. Near, 829 F.2d 888, 890 (9th Cir.

1987) (holding the same). “[S]tate contract law governs whether 

[the parties] reached an enforceable agreement settling the 

federal and state law claims alleged in Plaintiffs' complaint.”

Wilcox v. Arpaio, 753 F.3d 872, 876 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing 

Botefur v. City of Eagle Point, Or., 7 F.3d 152, 156 (9th Cir.

1993)).

Under California law, “[t]he essential elements of a 

contract are: parties capable of contracting; the parties' 

consent; a lawful object; and sufficient cause or consideration.” 

Lopez v. Charles Schwab & Co., 118 Cal. App. 4th 1224, 1230 (1st 

Dist. 2004) (citing California Civil Code section 1550). “An 

 

2 There is no indication that the August 8 draft differed 

in any material respect from the parties’ May 26 agreement. (See

Kern Decl. Ex. D (plaintiff’s counsel responded “[t]his looks 

fine” after reviewing the August 8 draft).)

3 Plaintiff’s counsel states that he “has been unable to 

communicate with or locate plaintiff to discuss [the present 

motion] despite numerous and diverse attempts.” (Statement of 

Non-Opp’n at 1 (Docket No. 26).)

Case 2:15-cv-01109-WBS-CKD Document 28 Filed 10/14/16 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

27

28

4

essential element of any contract is the consent of the parties, 

or mutual assent. Mutual assent usually is manifested by an 

offer communicated to the offeree and an acceptance communicated 

to the offeror.” Id. at 1229 (citing California Civil Code

sections 1550 and 1565). “The existence of mutual consent is 

determined by objective rather than subjective criteria, the test 

being what the outward manifestations of consent would lead a 

reasonable person to believe.” Weddington Prods., Inc. v. Flick, 

60 Cal. App. 4th 793, 811 (2d Dist. 1998) (quoting Meyer v. 

Benko, 55 Cal. App. 3d 937, 942-43 (2d Dist. 1976)).

If a valid agreement exists under state law, it must 

additionally meet two federal requirements. “First, it must be a 

complete agreement.” Marks-Foreman v. Reporter Pub. Co., 12 F. 

Supp. 2d 1089, 1092 (S.D. Cal. 1998) (citing Maynard v. City of 

San Jose, 37 F.3d 1396, 1401 (9th Cir. 1994) and 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.” Id. (citing Harrop v. Western Airlines, 

Inc., 550 F.2d 1143, 1144–45 (9th Cir. 1977)).

Here, all of the elements of an enforceable settlement 

agreement are present. Plaintiff and defendants engaged in a 

settlement negotiation over email which concluded with plaintiff 

stating that he “is agreeable to accepting the terms of 

[defendants’] proposed settlement.” (See Kern Decl. Ex. A at 1-

2.) The parties confirmed that they had settled by filing a 

Notice of Settlement five days after they reached the agreement. 

(See Notice of Settlement; Kern Decl. Ex. B at 3.) Each party 

offered and received consideration, (see Kern Decl. Ex. A at 1), 

Case 2:15-cv-01109-WBS-CKD Document 28 Filed 10/14/16 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

27

28

5

and the agreement was complete, (id. at 2 (noting that the 

agreement “resolve[d] this matter”)). “[A]t all relevant times, 

counsel for plaintiff had the explicit authority from his client 

to enter into the settlement that was reached in this matter.” 

(Non-Opp’n at 1.) 

That the parties did not end up executing a formal 

settlement agreement does not alter the validity of their 

original agreement over email. See Blix St. Records, Inc. v. 

Cassidy, 191 Cal. App. 4th 39, 48–49 (2d Dist. 2010) (“When 

parties intend that an agreement be binding, the fact that a more 

formal agreement must be prepared and executed does not alter the 

validity of the agreement.” (citing Mitchell v. Exhibition Foods, 

Inc., 184 Cal. App. 3d 1033, 1048 (1st Dist. 1986)).

Accordingly, the court will enforce the parties’ 

settlement agreement reached on May 26.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that defendants’ motion to 

enforce the settlement agreement reached on May 26, 2016 be, and 

the same hereby is, GRANTED.

Dated: October 14, 2016

Case 2:15-cv-01109-WBS-CKD Document 28 Filed 10/14/16 Page 5 of 5