N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C U IT M IC HAEL DR

ESC HER , Plaintiff - Appe lla nt,
v. B AB Y IT’ S YOU, LLC ; FLOYD M UTR UX; NORTHER

N LIGHTS, INC .; JONATHAN SANGER ; a nd JONC AR PR ODUC TIONS INC ., De fe nda

nts - Appe lle e s. No. 12-55385 D.C . No. 2:10-c v-06854-PSG-PLA
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the C e ntra l Distric t of C a lifornia Philip S. Gutierre z , Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d Nove m

be r 7, 2013 ** Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : O’ SC A

N NLAIN, GR

AB ER , a nd B EA, C irc uit Judge s. Pla intiff M ic ha e l Dre s c he r a ppe a ls the distric t c ourt’ s e nforc e m e nt of a
se ttle m e nt a gre e m e nt re solving his c la im s a ga inst De fe nda nts B a by It’ s You, LLC , 

# FIL ED NOV 14 2013 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S
. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public ation a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s tha

t this c a se is suita

ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).Floy d M utrux, Northe rn Lights, Inc
. , Jona tha n Sange r, an d Jonc ar Produc t ions, Inc
. Whe the r we re vie w the c ourt’ s e nforc e m e nt for a buse of disc re t ion, Doi v. Ha le kula ni C orp., 276 F.3d 1131, 1136 (9th C ir. 2002), or denovo, C o n gre gation Etz C ha im v. C ity of Los Ange le s, 371 F.3d 1122, 1124 (9th C ir. 2004), we a ffirm
. 1. The pa rtie s e nte re d into a

binding se ttle m e nt a gre e m e nt whe n, at a
se ttle m e nt c onfe re nc e be fore a m a gistra te judge , the y

e xpre ssly a gre e d to se ttle , sta te d the te rm s of the a gre e m e nt on there c ord, a nd a gre e d with those

te rm s . Doi, 276 F.3d a

t 1137–39. 2. The distric t c ourt prope rly looke d to e xtrinsic e vide nc e to inte rpre t whe the r the pa

rtie s (1) inte nde d

the two sepa

rate re ve n u e stre am s to run
c onc urre ntly or suc c e ssive ly a nd (2) inte nde d De fe nda

nt M utrux to sta

te his future
and c urre nt inte re st in the pla y s or his c urre nt inte re st only . Se e W olf v. W a lt Disne y Pic ture s & Te le vision, 76 C a l. R p tr. 3d 585, 608 (C t. App. 2008) (holding that , in inte rpre ting a

c ontra c t , a

c ourt m ay

provisional ly

re vie w e xtrinsic
e vide nc e ). The c ourt pe rm issibly he ld tha t, looking in pa

rt to thee xtrinsic
e vide nc e , the writte n

se ttle m e nt a gre e m e nt c orre c tly re c orde d tha t the re ve nue stre am s run suc c e s sive ly

and tha t De fe n da nt M utrux m

ust sta te his c urre nt inte re s t only . Afte r re vie wing thepropose d writte n se ttle m e nt a gre e m e nt, Pla i ntiff obje c te d sole ly

on a n unre late d ground. De s pite se ve ra l opportunitie s to do so,

2inc l uding during a he aring in front of a Unite d State s M a gistra te Judge , Pla intiff did not ra ise the two obje c tions note d a bove until, we e ks la

te r, he le arne d tha

t his origina l obje c tion ha d n o le ga l support. The distric t c ourt prope rly

c onc lude d tha

t Pla i ntiff’ s initial fa ilure to obje c t on thosegrounds wa s e vide nc e of his original inte nt. C f. Ke nne c o tt C orp. v. Union Oil C o. of C a l., 242 C a l. R ptr. 403, 410 (C t. App. 1987) (" The c onduc t of the pa rtie s a fte r e xe c ution of thec ontra c t a nd be fore
any c ontrove rsy

ha s a rise n a s to its e ffe c t a ffords the m ost re lia ble e vide nc e of the pa rtie s ’ inte ntions." ). 3. On a ppe a l, Pla intiff ra ise s furthe r obje c tions for thefirst tim e . Those obje c tions a

re wa i ve d. Se e O’ Guinn v. Love loc k C orr. C tr., 502 F.3d 1056, 1063 n.3 (9th C ir. 2007) (holding tha t a rgum e nts not ra ise d be fore the distric t c ourt ge ne ra lly are wa ive d). AFFIRM E D.

3