Debra Stefano v. City of Long Beach;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DEBRA STEFANO,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
CITY OF LONG BEACH; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 13-56156
D.C. No. 2:10-cv-06202-DSF-JC
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Dale S. Fischer, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted October 14, 2015**
Before: SILVERMAN, BERZON, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
Debra Stefano appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment in
accordance with the terms of a settlement agreement in her 42 U.S.C. § 1983
action. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of
discretion a decision to enforce a settlement agreement. Kirkland v. Legion Ins.
FILED
OCT 23 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

-- 1 of 2 --

Co., 343 F.3d 1135, 1140 (9th Cir. 2003). We affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Stefano’s motion to
set aside the settlement agreement because Stefano failed to establish grounds for
invalidating the agreement. See Ahern v. Cent. Pac. Freight Lines, 846 F.2d 47, 48
(9th Cir. 1988) (district court’s finding that a party consented to a settlement and
intended to be bound by it must be affirmed unless clearly erroneous); see also Cal.
Civ. Code § 1569 (elements of duress).
Denial of Stefano’s motion to disqualify her former counsel from continuing
to represent the other plaintiffs was proper. See Cohn v. Rosenfeld, 733 F.2d 625,
631 (9th Cir. 1984) (this court “will not disturb a district court’s ruling on a motion
to disqualify counsel if the record reveals any sound basis for the court’s action”
(citation and internal quotation marks omitted)); Paul E. Iacano Structural Eng’r,
Inc. v. Humphrey, 722 F.2d 435, 438 (9th Cir. 1983) (setting forth standard of
review).
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) (per curiam).
AFFIRMED.
13-56156 2

-- 2 of 2 --