Acosta
Acosta v. Super Save & La Michuacana Markets, Inc.
Opinion
trial_court Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JOSE ACOSTA, Case No. 1:25-cv-00105-BAM 12 Plaintiff, ORDER VACATING HEARING DATE OF
JULY 18, 2025
13 v.
ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO
14 SUPER SAVE & LA MICHUACANA SUBMIT SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING MARKETS, INC. dba SUPER SAVE REGARDING MOTION TO ENFORCE 15 MARKET, et al., SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND
REQUEST FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES
16 Defendants. (Doc. 17) 17
TWENTY-ONE DAY DEADLINE
18 19 On June 6, 2025, Plaintiff Jose Acosta filed a motion to enforce settlement agreement and 20 request for attorneys’ fees. (Doc. 17.) Following a preliminary review of the motion, the Court 21 finds that supplemental briefing is warranted. 22 Under federal law, “the trial court has power to summarily enforce on motion a settlement 23 agreement entered into by the litigants while the litigation is pending before it.” In re City 24 Equities Anaheim, Ltd., 22 F.3d 954, 957 (9th Cir. 1994) (quotation omitted). “Whether to 25 enforce a settlement agreement is a…