Opinion ID: 725398
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Stipulation of At-Will Employment

Text: 4 Plaintiff alleges that the district court erred in refusing to set aside his prior counsel's stipulation that Plaintiff was employed at will. 5 The trial court has broad discretion in enforcing stipulations. United States v. McGregor, 529 F.2d 928, 931 (9th Cir.1976). Generally, stipulations will be enforced absent a showing that the stipulation was the result of inadvertence, and the opposing party would not be prejudiced by setting aside the stipulation. McGregor, 529 F.2d at 931-32. 6 Plaintiff implies that his prior counsel inadvertently entered into the stipulation without his assent or authority, and that the inadvertence is established by prior counsel's failure to assert a cause of action based on a theory of implied contract to terminate only for cause, 1 plus the fact that prior counsel resigned from the bar with disciplinary charges pending. Plaintiff also argues that Defendant would not have been prejudiced by the stipulation, since Defendant was aware as early as June of 1994 that Plaintiff sought to raise the for cause issue. 7 Even assuming the opposing party would not be prejudiced, Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that the stipulation was the result of inadvertence. Relief from a stipulation is not warranted where, as here, the decision to enter into the stipulation was simply a matter of strategy. See McGregor, 529 F.2d at 932, n. 2 (noting that it is error to relieve a party from a stipulation when there was no inadvertency but merely a gamble for a better settlement). 8 Furthermore, Plaintiff cites no evidence in the record to support his allegation that the stipulation was entered into without his assent or authority. The district court did not abuse its discretion in upholding the stipulation. 9