UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
December 10, 2009
AMERICAN MANUFACTURERS MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY AND AMERICAN MOTORISTS INSURANCE COMPANY, PLAINTIFFS,
CAROTHERS CONSTRUCTION INC., DAVID L. CAROTHERS, AND TERRI L. CAROTHERS, DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Morrison C. England, Jr. United States District Judge
The Motion presently before the Court, denominated as a "Motion to Enforce Settlement", represents an effort by Plaintiffs in this matter to compel Defendants to execute a Stipulation for Entry of Judgment, along with a written Settlement Agreement, as contemplated at the time the parties' settlement in this case was entered into, on the record and in open court, on August 4, 2008. The transcript from the August 4th proceedings, however, shows plainly that, irrespective of any additional written settlement documents, the agreement to resolve the matter was binding between the parties that day.
August 4, 2008 Transcript, 22:1-10, Exhibit "A" to the Decl. of Joel M. Long. While the Court indicated its preference that the settlement be reduced to writing (id. at 8:21-22), that was not a mandatory condition to the settlement, and even absent the written documents sought by Plaintiffs the settlement remains enforceable as entered on the record.
There is no dispute that Defendants are not currently in default with respect to the terms of the August 4 settlement. That agreement called for a total of $200,000.00 to be paid within 90 days following August 4, 2008 (id. at 14:18-25). The parties further agreed that the remaining amount of the total $1,550,000.00 had to be paid within eighteen months, or by February 4, 2010, to avoid default. (See id. at 21:12-14). At the present time, it is undisputed that Defendants have more than complied with the terms of the settlement inasmuch as Plaintiffs have already paid a total of $589,147.16. Defendants are not in default, and there is nothing as to which the Court must enforce, unless Defendants fail to pay the remaining settlement balance ($960,852.84) by February 4, 2010.
Plaintiff's Motion to Enforce Settlement (Docket No. 242) is accordingly DENIED*fn1 at this juncture. Plaintiff's attorney's fee request in conjunction with that Motion is also denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.