eLaws | Code of Federal Regulations | United States Code |
 All Courts
 Federal Courts
 US Court of Appeals Cases
 Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
 2020-02

Dennis Hines v. Clearwater Paper Corporation ( 2020 )


Menu:
 
  •                            NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        FEB 10 2020
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DENNIS HINES,                                   No.    19-15336
Plaintiff-Appellant,            D.C. No. 2:17-cv-01688-APG-CWH
v.
MEMORANDUM*
CLEARWATER PAPER CORPORATION,
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
Andrew P. Gordon, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 4, 2020**
Before:      FERNANDEZ, SILVERMAN, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.
Dennis Hines appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment enforcing the
terms of a settlement agreement in his action alleging federal age discrimination
claims. We have jurisdiction under
    28 U.S.C. § 1291
    . We review for an abuse of
discretion the district court’s enforcement of a settlement agreement, Doi v.
*
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).
Halekulani Corp.,
    276 F.3d 1131
    , 1136 (9th Cir. 2002), and for clear error the
district court’s findings of fact, Ahern v. Cent. Pac. Freight Lines,
    846 F.2d 47
    , 48
(9th Cir. 1988). We affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion in enforcing the settlement
agreement because the district court’s findings that Hines agreed to the terms of the
settlement agreement, and that Hines did not assent under duress, were not clearly
erroneous. See Jeff D. v. Andrus,
    899 F.2d 753
    , 759 (9th Cir. 1989) (“The
construction and enforcement of settlement agreements are governed by principles
of local law which apply to interpretation of contracts generally.”); May v.
Anderson,
    119 P.3d 1254
    , 1256-57 (Nev. 2005) (setting forth essential elements to
the existence of a contract under Nevada law and noting that a contract may be
formed “when the parties have agreed to the material terms, even though the
contract’s exact language is not finalized until later.”); see also Callie v. Near,
    829 F.2d 888
    , 890 (9th Cir. 1987) (“It is well settled that a district court has the
equitable power to enforce summarily an agreement to settle a case pending before
it.”).
The district court also did not abuse its discretion in denying Hines’s motion
for reconsideration because Hines failed to establish any basis for relief. See Sch.
Dist. No. 1J Multnomah Cty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc.,
    5 F.3d 1255
    , 1263 (9th Cir.
1993) (setting forth grounds for reconsideration).
2                                     19-15336
We reject as unsupported by the record Hines’s contention that the
magistrate judge was biased during the early neutral evaluation.
AFFIRMED.
3                                 19-15336