Case Name: Emir SEHIC, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. William Van ANDERSON and Mayuka S. Anderson, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-08-18
Citations: 668 F. App'x 271
Docket Number: No. 13-17205
Parties: Emir SEHIC, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. William Van ANDERSON and Mayuka S. Anderson, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, and HAWKINS and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 668
Pages: 271–272

Head Matter:
Emir SEHIC, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. William Van ANDERSON and Mayuka S. Anderson, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 13-17205
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted August 16, 2016 San Francisco, California
Filed August 18, 2016
Emir Sehic, Pro Se
William Van Anderson, Pro Se
Mayuka S. Anderson, Pro Se
Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, and HAWKINS and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Emir Sehic appeals the district court's order dismissing his action and denying his motion to withdraw from an oral settlement agreement. We review the district court's decision to enforce the settlement agreement for an abuse of discretion, Wilcox v. Arpaio, 753 F.3d 872, 875 (9th Cir. 2014), and we affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion by enforcing the terms of the oral settlement agreement the parties reached on May 24, 2013. The agreement was complete and uncomplicated, and both parties acknowledged their agreement to the terms on the record. After reaching the agreement, the parties came "into open court and announced that there was a settlement. The settlement contained agreement as to all material terms, which terms were put on the record." Doi v. Halekulani Corp., 276 F.3d 1131, 1137-39 (9th Cir. 2002) (enforcing a similar oral agreement made of record in open court). There was no need to hold an evidentiary hearing to determine if there was a complete agreement or meeting of the minds, because the parties had already acknowledged as much in open court. See id.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
. The district court also retained jurisdiction to enforce the terms of the parties' agreement, and any disputes about ongoing compliance with the agreement may be directed to that court.