Emir Sehic v. WILLIAM VAN ANDERSON and MAYUKA S. ANDERSON

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
EMIR SEHIC,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
WILLIAM VAN ANDERSON and
MAYUKA S. ANDERSON,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 13-17205
D.C. No. 2:12-cv-03030-DAD
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Dale A. Drozd, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted August 16, 2016**
San Francisco, California
Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, and HAWKINS and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.
Emir Sehic appeals the district court’s order dismissing his action and denying
his motion to withdraw from an oral settlement agreement. We review the district
FILED
AUG 18 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* 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).

-- 1 of 2 --

court’s decision to enforce the settlement agreement for an abuse of discretion, Wilcox
v. Arpaio, 753 F.3d 872, 875 (9th Cir. 2014), and we affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion by enforcing the terms of the oral
settlement agreement the parties reached on May 24, 2013. The agreement was
complete and uncomplicated, and both parties acknowledged their agreement to the
terms on the record. After reaching the agreement, the parties came “into open court
and announced that there was a settlement. The settlement contained agreement as to
all material terms, which terms were put on the record.” Doi v. Halekulani Corp., 276
F.3d 1131, 1137-39 (9th Cir. 2002) (enforcing a similar oral agreement made of
record in open court). There was no need to hold an evidentiary hearing to determine
if there was a complete agreement or meeting of the minds, because the parties had
already acknowledged as much in open court. See id.1
AFFIRMED.
1 The district court also retained jurisdiction to enforce the terms of the parties’
agreement, and any disputes about ongoing compliance with the agreement may be
directed to that court.
2

-- 2 of 2 --