Credit Bureau Connection v. William Pardini

MEMORANDUM

Defendants-Appellants William Pardini and B.T.B., Inc., doing business as Data Consultants (collectively “Data Consultants”), appeal the district court’s order denying their motion to enforce a settlement agreement and judgment against Plaintiff-Appellee Credit Bureau Connection, Inc. The district court had jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1367 because the stipulated judgment expressly provided that the court retained jurisdiction over disputes relating to the enforcement or breach of the parties’ settlement agreement. See Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 381 , 114 S.Ct. 1673 , 128 L.Ed.2d 391 (1994). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We affirm.

As an initial matter, the district court did not abuse its discretion by declining to hold an evidentiary hearing before denying Data Consultants’ motion. “Where material facts concerning the existence or terms of an agreement to settle are in dispute, the parties must be allowed an evidentiary hearing.” Callie v. Near, 829 F.2d 888, 890 (9th Cir.1987). The court accepted declarations and heard argument. The parties relied on the briefs and declarations rather than expressly…