Opinion
20-cv-517-MMA (RBM)
06-09-2021
PRODUCE PAY, INC., Plaintiff, v. FVF DISTRIBUTORS INC., et al., Defendants.
ORDER ADOPTING IN PART AND MODIFYING IN PART REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE;
[Doc. No. 55]
ORDER GRANTING IN PART PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR ORDER ENFORCING SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
[Doc. No. 48]
HON. MICHAEL M. ANELLO United States District Judge
On March 19, 2020, Produce Pay, Inc. (“Plaintiff”) initiated this action against FVF Distributors Inc. and F. David Avila (collectively, “Defendants”) pursuant to the Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act, 7 U.S.C. §§ 499a et seq. See Doc. No. 1. In October 2020, the parties participated in an Early Neutral Evaluation conference before United States Magistrate Judge Ruth Bermudez Montenegro wherein the case settled. See Doc. No. 43. Thereafter, the parties executed a settlement agreement (the “Settlement Agreement”). See Doc. No. 48-2 at 15-18. Plaintiff now seeks to enforce the Settlement Agreement and asks the Court to enter judgment against Defendants consistent with the terms of the Settlement Agreement. See Doc. No. 48. The matter was referred to Judge Montenegro for preparation of a Report and Recommendation pursuant to Title 28, § 636(b)(1) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72. Judge Montenegro has issued a thorough and well-reasoned Report recommending that the motion be granted in its entirety. See Doc. No. 55.
Citations to electronically filed documents refer to the pagination assigned by the CM/ECF system.
Pursuant to Rule 72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the Court must “make a de novo determination of those portions of the report . . . to which objection is made, ” and “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate [judge].” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see also United States v. Remsing, 874 F.2d 614, 617 (9th Cir. 1989). Objections to the Report and Recommendation were due no later than June 1, 2021. See Doc. No. 55 at 11. To date, no objections have been filed, and the time for doing so has expired. See Docket.
The Court finds that Judge Montenegro has issued an accurate Report and well-reasoned recommendation that the Court enforce the Settlement Agreement and award attorney's fees to Plaintiff's counsel. Specifically, the Court agrees with Judge Montenegro's analysis and finds that the parties knowingly and voluntarily entered into a valid and binding Settlement Agreement under California law. See Doc. No. 55 at 6. The Court therefore ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation to that extent and GRANTS Plaintiff's motion to enforce the Settlement Agreement. Moreover, as Judge Montenegro aptly concluded, the Settlement Agreement provides for attorney's fees incurred in enforcing the Settlement Agreement and thus Plaintiff is entitled to them. See Id. at 11. Therefore, the Court also ADOPTS that portion of the Report and Recommendation and AWARDS attorney's fees in the amount of $2, 250 to Maurice Wutscher LLP.
The Court, however, declines to enter judgment against Defendants in the total amount of $42, 250 at this time. Plaintiff's request is premature. The issue of the Settlement Agreement's validity and enforceability is distinct from Defendants' alleged breach and Plaintiffs entitlement to judgment. The latter has not been sufficiently briefed. Further, even assuming Plaintiff demonstrated that Defendants breached the Settlement Agreement, Plaintiff does not explain how such a breach entitles it to immediate judgment for the full amount under either the terms of the Settlement Agreement or California law. Moreover, it appears that Defendants have until July 13, 2021 to tender full payment. See Doc. No. 48-2 at 16. And if Defendants do so, the terms set forth in paragraph 7 of the Settlement Agreement seem to indicate that the parties will stipulate to dismissal of the action in lieu of seeking entry of judgment. See Id. at 17.
Accordingly, the Court MODIFIES the Report and Recommendation and DENIES Plaintiffs request for judgment without prejudice. The Court instead DIRECTS the parties to contact Judge Montenegro's chambers, on or before June 15, 2021 , to schedule a further Settlement Disposition Conference.
IT IS SO ORDERED.