United States District Court, D. Nevada
C. JONES UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
this Court is Defendant's Motion to Enforce Settlement
(ECF No. 31) and three motions by the Plaintiff: Motion to
Unseal (ECF No. 33), First Motion to Extend Time (ECF No.
39), and First Motion to Amend Complaint (ECF No. 40). This
Court finds that the Parties validly entered into an
enforceable agreement on February 4, 2019 during an Early
Neutral Evaluation (ENE) before Judge Carla B. Carry. Thus,
the Court grants the Defendant's motion and denies the
Plaintiff's Motions as moot.
the ENE proceeding, the Parties agreed to the material terms
for a settlement of the case. The settlement was conditional
on the Parties agreeing on (1) which files from the
Plaintiff's personnel file the Defendant would scrub and
(2) that any settlement would comport with the
Defendant's obligations under Nevada Revised Statute
§ 239B.020 (mandating certain disclosures by employers
for past employees). In the ENE, the Court stated, for
So I'm going to start with Mr. Erwine. Have you agreed in
this particular case to dismiss this case and all claims,
whether raised or unraised, in this litigation for the
following settlement: First, for a $10, 000 settlement, also
for the scrubbing, the removal from your employment record of
certain documents and records that are in your personnel
file, together with a mutual recommendation that will be
consistent with the requirements of NRS Section 239B.020?
(Pl. Resp. Ex. 1 at 4:12-4:21, ECF No. 34.) To which the
Plaintiff replied, “Yes.” Id. at 4:22.
this time, the Defendant has been trying to reduce the
agreement to writing, but now the Plaintiff is attempting to
withdraw from the binding agreement. The Defendant has
produced a Proposed Mutual Release of All Claims (ECF No. 42)
to the Plaintiff over a month before bringing the motion that
appears to contain all of the essential elements of the
agreement that the Parties have entered into, and the
Plaintiff has not shown how the proposal is objectionable.
Court has the power to enforce settlement agreements entered
into by the Parties. Callie v. Near, 829 F.2d 888,
890 (9th Cir. 1987). A court should enforce a settlement
agreement when (1) the settlement is complete and (2) the
settlement is the result of an agreement of the parties.
Pamplin v. Dzurenda, No. 3:16-cv-668, 2018 WL
4214417, at *2 (D. Nev. July 30, 2018), report and
recommendation adopted, No. 3:16-cv-668, 2018 WL 4088004
(D. Nev. Aug. 27, 2018). Based upon the transcripts from the
ENE proceedings, the Court finds that the Parties did enter
into a validly executed settlement and that the Plaintiff
cannot get out of the agreement for any reason other than the
two conditions outlined in the above quote.
Plaintiff has not shown how either of the two conditions were
not met. First, the Defendant has agreed to remove every
requested record from the Plaintiff's personnel file.
Second, the Plaintiff complains that Section 239B.020 might
require certain disclosures about the Plaintiff but neither
posits how the Defendant's proposed Mutual Release of All
Claims violates Section 239B.020 nor suggests an alternative
to the Defendant's proposal. Thus, this Court grants the
Defendant's Motion to Enforce Settlement. See
Pamplin, No. 3:16-cv-668, 2018 WL 4214417, at *3 (D.
Nev. July 30, 2018) (holding that when a condition concerning
a settlement is satisfied, then the settlement is binding).
In granting the motion, this Court orders the Parties shall
submit a stipulation and order dismissing this case with
prejudice by May 31, 2019 and finds that the Proposed Mutual
Release of All Claims adequately summarizes the binding
agreement between the Parties.
the Defendant asks for attorney's fees to cover the extra
litigation costs associated with having to argue the finality
of the settlement agreement. The Defendant cites to Doi
v. Halekulani Corp., 276 F.3d 1131, 1136 (9th Cir.
2002), where the Ninth Circuit affirmed a district
court's imposition of sanctions against a similarly
situated plaintiff. While the cases are remarkably
similar-both cases involve plaintiffs that entered into
settlement agreements in open court clearly stating the
material terms on record only to subsequently challenge the
agreements' validity-the Court finds that sanctions are
not appropriate. In Doi, the district court had
warned the plaintiff that the oral agreement was binding, and
the plaintiff had reversed her story; she previously argued
that the agreement was not binding then changed her position
to argue that the written agreement did not comply with the
oral agreement. Despite, the more egregious behavior in
Doi, the district court only imposed a sanction of
$1, 000, “which was far less than the attorney fees
incurred” by the defendant. Id. Thus, the
Court declines to impose any sanctions on the Plaintiff.
HEREBY ORDERED that the Defendant's Motion to Enforce
Settlement (ECF No. 31) is GRANTED.
FURTHER ORDERED that the Parties shall submit a stipulation
and order dismissing this case with prejudice by May 31,
FURTHER ORDERED that the Plaintiffs Motion to Unseal (ECF No.
33) is DENIED AS MOOT.
FURTHER ORDERED that the Plaintiffs First Motion to Extend