United States District Court, E.D. California
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
EDMUND
F. BRENNAN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
Plaintiff
is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in an action
brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On May 20, 2015, United
States Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman presided over a
settlement conference, which resulted in the parties’
agreement to settle this case. ECF No. 142. Upon confirmation
that a settlement had been reached, the terms of the
settlement were stated on the record. Id.
Thereafter, however, plaintiff sent a letter to Judge Newman
stating that he (plaintiff) had decided to
“decline” defendants’ settlement
“offer.” ECF No. 144. Judge Newman responded by
order that “[t]he record reflects that all parties
agreed to the terms of the settlement in open court.”
ECF No. 143. Plaintiff now moves for a second settlement
conference. ECF No. 147. Defendants move to enforce the
settlement agreement. ECF No. 149.
I.
Background
The
current dispute centers around a portion of the settlement
agreement in which plaintiff agreed to substitute the
California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation
(“CDCR”) for defendants in this action for
purposes of settlement. According to plaintiff, when the
substitution was discussed at the settlement conference,
“vital information was withheld from plaintiff and
suppressed by Defendants.” Plaintiff states that this
“vital information” is the fact that one purpose
for the defendants wanting the substitution as a condition of
settlement was for “keeping defendants’ records
‘clean’ before the Medical License Board.”
ECF No. 150 at 4. Plaintiff states that, if he had known this
motivation by defense, he would not have agreed to the
settlement. He also states that there is some language in the
proposed written settlement agreement (which he does not
identify) that he does not understand. While not entirely
clear, it appears that plaintiff has not asked for
clarification of the language from defense counsel. Instead,
plaintiff would like Judge Newman to hold a new settlement
conference to clarify the language.
The
recording of the proceeding in which the settlement was
placed on the record confirms that a settlement agreement was
in fact reached. It also confirms that all parties were aware
of the condition insisted upon by defendants that the CDCR be
substituted in place of the individually named defendants.
Defense counsel noted on the record that the substitution was
“for settlement purposes.” Judge Newman informed
plaintiff, on the record, that the settlement funds would
come from CDCR anyway and asked if he objected to the
substitution. Plaintiff said no. Later, after the settlement
had been confirmed and stated for the record, plaintiff asked
if the sole reason for the substitution was because CDCR
would be paying the funds. Judge Newman specifically informed
plaintiff that another reason was that medical professionals
may have various reporting responsibilities as a result of
litigation against them, and that the substitution would make
things cleaner, noting that the money to fund the settlement
was coming from CDCR anyway. Defense counsel agreed, saying
unequivocally that defendants wanted the substitution to
avoid the reporting requirements.[1] Plaintiff voiced no
objection. The settlement was confirmed on the record and the
hearing ended.
II.
Analysis
When
the parties to litigation come to an oral agreement to settle
the case and agree in open court to the terms of the
agreement as they are placed on the record, the parties
become bound by the agreement even if they have not yet
signed a written settlement agreement. Doi v. Halekulani
Corp., 276 F.3d 1131, 1137-38 (9th Cir. 2002).
Plaintiff’s contention that “vital
information” regarding the substitution of CDCR for the
defendant doctors was “withheld” from him is
belied by the hearing record, which confirms that Judge
Newman and defense counsel straightforwardly informed
plaintiff that defendants wanted the substitution to avoid
certain reporting requirements. Indeed, it appears that this
was precisely the point of defendants’ willingness to
compromise in a case that they otherwise would have litigated
to judgment. Having been so informed, plaintiff did not raise
any objection. As confirmed by the record of the settlement
proceedings, plaintiff expressly and knowingly agreed to the
terms of the settlement in open court and he is now bound by
the settlement agreement as stated on the record just as
though he had signed a written agreement containing those
terms. Doi, 276 F.3d at 1137-38.
As to
plaintiff’s claim that he needs help understanding
certain unidentified portions of the written agreement, Judge
Newman directed plaintiff to first seek an explanation of
anything in the agreement he did not understand from defense
counsel. Plaintiff does not indicate that he has done so, nor
does he identify which portions of the agreement are unclear.
While plaintiff is free to confer with defense counsel
regarding any portions of the agreement that he now claims he
does not understand, he has not presented any reason to set
aside the terms of the settlement agreement as stated on the
record at the time of the court supervised settlement
conference.
III.
Conclusion and Recommendation
For the
reasons stated above, the undersigned recommends that:
1. Plaintiffs motion for a second settlement conference (ECF
No. 147) be denied without prejudice.
2. Plaintiff be provided a period of 30 days in which to file
a new motion for a second settlement conference with Judge
Newman. Such a motion must describe the portions of the
agreement plaintiff does not understand and indicate that
plaintiff has discussed those portions with defense counsel
prior to filing the motion.
3. Ruling on defendants’ motion to enforce the
settlement agreement (ECF No. 149) be deferred until the
resolution of the new motion for a second settlement
conference filed by plaintiff or the date on which the time
for filing such a motion passes.
These
findings and recommendations are submitted to the United
States District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the
provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within fourteen
days after being served with these findings and
recommendations, any party may file written objections with
the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document
should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate
Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Failure to
file objections within the specified time may waive the right
...