LAWRENCE v. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO (2021)

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.2021-07-29No. No. 19-15917

Summary · law.co

Holding. The court affirmed the district court's order enforcing the oral settlement agreement, finding no abuse of discretion in the lower court's determination that Lawrence accepted the terms of a complete settlement.

Emil Lawrence challenged a district court's decision to enforce an oral settlement agreement in his federal civil rights lawsuit alleging excessive force. The appellate court reviewed whether the lower court abused its discretion in finding that Lawrence had accepted the complete terms of the settlement. The court determined that the district court's factual finding regarding Lawrence's acceptance was neither contrary to law nor clearly erroneous, and therefore the enforcement decision was proper.

Lawrence raised additional arguments on appeal, including claims that the district court was biased and that the enforcement violated his constitutional rights. The appellate court rejected these contentions as lacking merit. The court also declined to address any arguments that Lawrence had not properly raised in his opening brief, applying standard appellate procedural rules.

Summary generated by law.co from the public-domain opinion. The opinion text itself is public domain.

Key issues

Whether enforcing an oral settlement agreement constitutes an abuse of discretion
Whether a party's acceptance of settlement terms was clearly erroneous
Whether a party's constitutional rights were violated by settlement enforcement

Procedural posture

Lawrence appealed pro se from a district court order granting defendants' motion to enforce a settlement agreement in a Section 1983 excessive force action.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

MEMORANDUM ***

Emil Lawrence appeals pro se from the district courts order granting defendants’ motion to enforce a settlement agreement in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging excessive force. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion. Doi v. Halekulani Corp., 276 F.3d 1131, 1136 (9th Cir. 2002). We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion in enforcing the oral settlement agreement because its finding that Lawrence accepted the terms of a complete settlement agreement was not contrary to law or clearly erroneous. See Golden v. Cal. Emergency Physicians Med. Grp., 782 F.3d 1083, 1089 (9th Cir. 2015) (construction and enforcement of a settlement agreement is governed by local law of contract interpretation); Maynard v. City of San Jose, 37 F.3d 1396, 1401 (9th Cir. 1994) (reversal of decision regarding enforceability of settlement agreement “is appropriate only if the court based its decision on an error of law or clearly erroneous findings of fact”); see also Cal. Civ. Code § 1550 (setting forth essential elements to the existence of a contract under California law).

We reject as without merit Lawrences contentions that the district court was biased against him and violated his constitutional rights.

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

Lawrences motion for an extension of time is denied as unnecessary.

AFFIRMED.