Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 TERRANCE RUSSELL an individual, Case No.: 24cv0527-GPC(SBC)

12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ 13 v. MOTION TO ENFORCE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT 14 CITY OF SAN DIEGO, a municipality;

SAN DIEGO POLICE DEPARTMENT 15 [Dkt. No. 63.] OFFICER L. FANLO (BADGE #7841), 16 an individual; and DOES 1-50, inclusive, 17 Defendants. 18 19 Before the Court is Defendants’ motion to enforce the settlement agreement 20 achieved during the February 11, 2026 settlement videoconference before the Magistrate 21 Judge. (Dkt. No. 63.) No opposition was filed by Plaintiff. Based on the reasoning 22 below, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ motion to enforce settlement. 23 BACKGROUND 24 On December 21, 2023, Plaintiff Terrance Russell (“Plaintiff”) filed a 42 U.S.C. § 25 1983 civil rights complaint against Defendants City of San Diego, San Diego Police 26 Department Officer L. Fanlo, and David Nisleit, Chief of San Diego Police Department 27 in San Diego Superior Court. (Dkt. No. 1-2, Compl.) On March 20, 2024, the case was 28 removed to this Court. (Dkt. No. 1.) After the Court granted in part and denied in part 1 Defendants’ motion to dismiss, Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint (“FAC”) on July 2 8, 2024 alleging claims against Defendants City of San Diego (“the City”), and San 3 Diego Police Department Officer L. Fanlo (“Officer Fanlo”) (collectively “Defendants”). 4 (Dkt. Nos. 7, 8.) Then, on September 26, 2024, the Court granted Defendants’ motion to 5 dismiss the Monell claims with leave to amend. (Dkt. No. 17.) On October 17, 2024, 6 Plaintiff filed a second amended complaint (“SAC”) to correct the deficiencies noted on 7 the Monell claims. (Dkt. No. 18.) After the Court granted in part and denied in part 8 Defendants’ motion to dismiss the SAC, (Dkt. No. 24), Defendants the City and Officer 9 Fanlo filed an answer on February 7, 2025. (Dkt. No. 25.) On September 24, 2025, the 10 Court granted the motion to withdraw as Attorney for Plaintiff. (Dkt. No. 37, 40.) 11 Plaintiff has been proceeding pro se. 12 On December 12, 2025, Defendants filed motion for summary judgment, or in the 13 alternative, partial summary judgment. (Dkt. No. 46.) Plaintiff did not file an opposition. 14 In the meantime, on February 11, 2026, the Magistrate Judge held a mandatory settlement 15 conference via videoconference. (Dkt. No. 52.) The parties reached a settlement and the 16 terms of the settlement were placed on the record. (Id.) According to the settlement, the 17 City agreed to pay Plaintiff a total of $5,000 in exchange for an executed release 18 agreement and a filled out W-9 form. (Dkt. No. 59 at 5.1) The parties further agreed that 19 once Plaintiff executes the settlement agreement and receives the settlement funds, 20 Defendants will prepare a Joint Motion for Dismissal for Plaintiff’s review and approval. 21 (Id. at 5.) Both parties orally confirmed the terms of the settlement agreement. (Id. at 5- 22 6.) 23 On February 17, 2026, the City sent a letter to Plaintiff via email outlining the 24 steps and attached a draft Release and Settlement of All Claims, a W-9 form, a draft Joint 25 Motion for Dismissal, and draft proposed Order Granting Joint Motion to Dismiss with 26 27 28 1 Prejudice. (Dkt. No. 63-2, Leasure Decl. ¶ 3; id., Ex. 2 at 14-25.) Defendants reached 2 out to Plaintiff several times regarding the documents but he never responded. (Dkt. No. 3 63-2, Leasure Decl. ¶ 4.) 4 On April 22, 2026, the Magistrate Judge held a settlement disposition conference 5 with a further settlement disposition conference held on May 21, 2026. (Dkt. Nos. 57, 6 61.) At the May 21, 2026 settlement disposition conference, it was noted that Plaintiff 7 had not yet signed the settlement agreement and Defendants intend to file a motion to 8 enforce the settlement agreement within thirty days if Plaintiff failed to return the signed 9 settlement documents. (Dkt. No. 62.) On June 15, 2026, Defendants filed a motion to 10 enforce settlement agreement asking the Court to order Plaintiff to execute the release 11 agreement and provide properly completed W-9 form within thirty days of the hearing of 12 the motion. (Dkt. No. 63-1 at 3-4.) Defendants also request that in the event that 13 Plaintiff fails to comply with the Court’s order, the Court dismiss the action, with 14 prejudice, with no obligation owed to Plaintiff. (Id. at 4.) 15 DISCUSSION 16 A. Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement 17 A district court has the inherent power to summarily enforce, by way of motion, a 18 settlement agreement entered into while the litigation is pending before it. In re City of 19 Equities Anaheim, Ltd., 22 F.3d 954, 957 (9th Cir. 1994); Callie v. Near, 829 F.2d 888, 20 890 (9th Cir. 1987). “To be enforced, a settlement agreement must meet two 21 requirements. First, it must be a complete agreement meaning “the parties have reached 22 agreement on all material terms.” Callie, 829 F.2d at 891. Second, both parties “must 23 have either agreed to the terms of the settlement or authorized their respective counsel to 24 settle the dispute.” Marks-Forman v. Reporter Pub. Co., 12 F. Supp. 2d 1089, 1092 25 (S.D. Cal. 1998) (internal citations omitted). An “oral agreement is binding on the 26 parties, particularly when the terms are memorialized into the record,” and “even if a 27 party has a change of heart [after agreeing] to its terms but before the terms are reduced 28 to writing.” Doi v. Halekulnai Corp., 276 F.3d 1131, 1138 (9th Cir. 2002) (quoting 1 Sargent v. HHS, 229 F.3d 1088, 1090 (Fed. Cir. 2000)). A party’s refusal to sign written 2 settlement documents after an in-court oral agreement does not defeat enforcement. See 3 id. 276 F.3d at 1138 (holding that appellant was bound by the settlement agreement, 4 despite not signing a written contract, because she affirmed the terms on the record in 5 open court.) Provisions “in full accord with the terms of agreement stated in open court” 6 are enforceable. Id. at 1139-40. 7 Here, the Magistrate Judge held a settlement conference on February 11, 2026. 8 (Dkt. No. 51.) With both parties present, the Magistrate Judge confirmed the settlement 9 and placed the material terms on the record. (Dkt. Nos. 52, 59.) These terms included: 10 (1) Defendants will pay Plaintiff $5,000; (2) Plaintiff will provide Defendants with a 11 filled out W-9 form; (3) Defendants will draft a written settlement agreement for Plaintiff 12 to sign and return; and (4) Defendants will provide a Joint Motion to Dismiss for Plaintiff 13 to execute after receiving the settlement funds. (Dkt. No. 59 at 5.) Both parties verbally 14 confirmed their agreement to these terms. (Id. at 5-6.) 15 The parties thus reached a complete settlement agreement encompassing both 16 parties’ obligations—specifically, Defendants’ obligation to pay and draft the relevant 17 written documents and Plaintiff’s obligation to provide a filled out W-9 form and sign the 18 written documents. As Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, he inherently possesses the 19 authority to settle his own case, and defense counsel confirmed his authority to settle on 20 behalf of Defendants. (Dkt. No. 40; Dkt. No. 59 at 6.) The parties entered into this oral 21 agreement before the Magistrate Judge, and its terms were memorialized on the record. 22 For the foregoing reasons, this oral agreement is binding and enforceable and Plaintiff’s 23 subsequent failure to sign the written settlement agreement does not render it 24 unenforceable. See Doi, 276 F.3d at 1136-37 (“[a]n agreement does not have to be in 25 writing to be binding. An oral agreement is binding.”). 26 For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ motion to enforce the 27 settlement agreement. 28 / / / 1 B. Request for Dismissal 2 In the event Plaintiff fails to comply with the Court’s order, Defendants summarily 3 request dismissal of the action, with prejudice, with no obligation owed to Plaintiff. (Dkt. 4 No. 63-1 at 4.) Defendants provide no legal authority to support dismissal of the action 5 in the event Plaintiff fails to comply with this Court’s order. 6 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) allows the court to dismiss an action for 7 failure of the plaintiff to obey an order of the court. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). A district 8 court has an inherent power to dismiss an action in order to protect the integrity of its 9 orders and that “[t]he decision to dismiss for failure to comply with an order is within 10 discretion of trial court.” Fendler v. Westgate-Cal. Corp., 527 F.2d 1168, 1170 (9th Cir. 11 1975) (citations omitted). On assessing whether to dismiss a claim for failure to 12 prosecute or failure to comply with a court order, the Court must consider the following 13 factors: “(1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s 14 need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to defendants[ ]; (4) the availability of 15 less drastic alternatives; and (5) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their 16 merits.” Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 642 (9th Cir. 2002) (citing Ferdik v. 17 Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992)). 18 However, Defendants’ request for dismissal rests entirely on a hypothetical, future 19 non-compliance that may or may not occur. Therefore, the Court DENIES Defendants’ 20 request to dismiss the action as premature. Defendants may file a motion seeking 21 dismissal with facts and law if Plaintiff fails to comply with this Court’s order enforcing 22 the settlement agreement. 23 CONCLUSION 24 Based on the above, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ motion to enforce settlement 25 agreement. The Court ORDERS Plaintiff to sign and return to Defendants the Release 26 and Settlement of All Claims and a completed W-9, both of which have already been 27 28 1 || provided by Defendants on or before September 14, 2026.? Once Plaintiff receives the 2 || settlement funds, he shall execute and return to Defendants the Joint Motion for 3 || Dismissal. The Court DENIES Defendants’ request for dismissal of the case for 4 || Plaintiff's failure to comply with the Court’s order as premature. The hearing date set on 5 || August 14, 2026 shall be vacated. 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. 7 Dated: July 31, 2026 <= 8 Hon. Gonzalo P. Curiel 9 United States District Judge 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 |; 21 The Court notes that the letter sent to Plaintiff on February 17, 2026 differs slightly on the procedures 22 || stated in the oral settlement agreement. The February 17, 2026 letter asks Plaintiff to return the signed Release and Settlement of All Claims, a completed W-9 form and a signed Joint Motion for Dismissal 23 || before Defendants provide the settlement funds. (Dkt. No. 63-2, Leasure Decl., Ex. 2 at 14.) However, 24 this instruction is inconsistent with the oral settlement agreement, which requires Plaintiff to execute the Joint Motion for Dismissal only after receiving Defendants’ payment. (Dkt. No. 59 at 5.) Nonetheless, 25 factual assertions and requests made in Defendants’ own motion is consistent with the settlement agreement. (Dkt. No. 63-1, at 2-4.) A court will not consider “evidence extrinsic to the oral settlement 26 || agreement placed on the record” where the language of the oral agreement is “clear and explicit.” Prod. & Ventures Int'l vy. Axus Stationary (Shanghai) Ltd., No. 16-CV-00669-Y GR, 2018 WL 3570664, at *2 27 (N.D. Cal. July 25, 2018) (citing Cal. Civ. Code § 1638). Because the oral agreement establishes a clear 28 timeline, the Court enforces its terms and orders Plaintiff to submit only a signed Release and Settlement of All Claims and a completed W-9 to initiate the payment process. □□