Opinion
No. 13-17205
08-18-2016
EMIR SEHIC, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. WILLIAM VAN ANDERSON and MAYUKA S. ANDERSON, Defendants-Appellees.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
D.C. No. 2:12-cv-03030-DAD MEMORANDUM Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California
Dale A. Drozd, District Judge, Presiding Submitted August 16, 2016 San Francisco, California Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, and HAWKINS and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Emir Sehic appeals the district court's order dismissing his action and denying his motion to withdraw from an oral settlement agreement. We review the district court's decision to enforce the settlement agreement for an abuse of discretion, Wilcox v. Arpaio, 753 F.3d 872, 875 (9th Cir. 2014), and we affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion by enforcing the terms of the oral settlement agreement the parties reached on May 24, 2013. The agreement was complete and uncomplicated, and both parties acknowledged their agreement to the terms on the record. After reaching the agreement, the parties came "into open court and announced that there was a settlement. The settlement contained agreement as to all material terms, which terms were put on the record." Doi v. Halekulani Corp., 276 F.3d 1131, 1137-39 (9th Cir. 2002) (enforcing a similar oral agreement made of record in open court). There was no need to hold an evidentiary hearing to determine if there was a complete agreement or meeting of the minds, because the parties had already acknowledged as much in open court. See id.
The district court also retained jurisdiction to enforce the terms of the parties' agreement, and any disputes about ongoing compliance with the agreement may be directed to that court. --------
AFFIRMED.