Opinion ID: 6329210
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: standard of review

Text: “This Court reviews for clear error the district court’s factual determination that the parties had agreed to settlement terms; however, we review the district court’s decision to grant a motion to enforce the settlement based on its preliminary factual finding for an abuse of discretion.” RE/MAX Int’l, Inc. v. Realty One, Inc., 271 F.3d 633, 645 (6th Cir. 2001) (citing 7 Why there are no additional police reports is not entirely clear. It is unlikely that the University of Toledo Policy Department simply failed to create a report (indeed, the defense points out that all police calls generate incident or police reports in a record-management system). What seems more likely is that Cyrus informed OOD of the thefts and incorrectly assumed that OOD informed University police on his behalf. (Pl.’s Br. at 7 (“Based on what Ms. Hustwick reported to Cyrus, and based on his own observations, Ms. Hustwick contacted Hospital Security on multiple occasions following Cyrus’ reports of theft.”)) -9- No. 20-3913, Cyrus v. Univ. of Toledo, et al. another source). “A district court abuses its discretion when it applies the incorrect legal standard, misapplies the correct legal standard, or relies upon clearly erroneous findings of fact.” United States v. Fowler, 819 F.3d 298, 303 (6th Cir. 2016) (quoting another source)). “Because settlement agreements are a type of contract, the formation and enforceability of a purported settlement agreement are governed by state contract law.” Smith v. ABN AMRO Mortg. Grp. Inc., 434 F. App’x. 454, 460 (6th Cir. 2011) (citation omitted). “Under Ohio law, ‘a valid settlement agreement . . . requir[es] a meeting of the minds as well as an offer and acceptance.’” Id. (quoting Rulli v. Fan Co., 79 Ohio St.3d 374, 683 N.E.2d 337, 338 (1997)). “Where a contract’s meaning is clear on its face, that meaning controls.” In re AmTrust Fin. Corp., 694 F.3d 741, 750 (6th Cir. 2012). To determine whether a contract’s meaning is clear on its face, we “consider the language of the agreement, the context in which that language appears and other traditional canons of construction.” Prater v. Ohio Educ. Ass’n, 505 F.3d 437, 441 (6th Cir. 2007). No evidentiary hearing is required where an agreement is clear and unambiguous, and no issue of fact is present. Aro Corp. v. Allied Witan Co., 531 F.2d 1368, 1372 (6th Cir. 1976). “If, after applying these rules of interpretation, the contract remains ambiguous,” meaning a contractual provision is subject to two reasonable interpretations, then the parties’ original understanding of the contract’s terms may be ascertained through extrinsic evidence. Prater, 505 F.3d at 441; Shifrin v. Forest City Enters., Inc., 597 N.E.2d 499, 501 (1992). If disputed material facts exist, then an evidentiary hearing is generally compulsory. Kukla v. Nat’l Distillers Prods., Co., 483 F.2d 619, 622 (6th Cir. 1973).