Anton Ewing v. K2 Property Development, LLC

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 24 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ANTON A. EWING, No. 18-56487
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 3:16-cv-00678-LAB-AGS
v.
MEMORANDUM*
K2 PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT, LLC,
DBA Conserva Solar, a California Limited
Liability Company; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
Larry A. Burns, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted July 15, 2019**
Before: SCHROEDER, SILVERMAN, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
Anton A. Ewing appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment enforcing
the terms of a settlement agreement in his action alleging federal and state law
claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of
*
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).
discretion the district court’s enforcement of a settlement agreement, Doi v.
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 by enforcing the parties’
settlement agreement because the district court’s findings that Ewing agreed to the
terms, and that defendants substantially complied with those terms, were not
clearly erroneous. See Doi, 276 F.3d at 1137-40 (district court did not abuse its
discretion in enforcing settlement agreement where material terms of agreement
were read into the record and parties agreed to them); 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.”); see also Cal. Civ. Code § 1550 (setting forth essential
elements to the existence of a contract under California law); id. § 1567 (consent
not free when obtained through duress, fraud, undue influence, or mistake).
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).
Appellee Klein’s request for sanctions under 28 U.S.C. § 1927, set forth in
2 18-56487
his answering brief, is denied.
AFFIRMED.
3 18-56487