Harps

MEMORANDUM

The County of Los Angeles appeals the district court’s award of attorneys’ fees to Plaintiff-Appellee Valariea Harps in her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that she was wrongfully arrested. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and we REVERSE. Because the parties are familiar with the factual and procedural history of the case, we do not recount it here except as necessary to explain our decision.

The County argues that the district court erred in awarding Harps attorneys’ fees pursuant to the terms of a settlement agreement because the parties never entered into a binding settlement agreement. This Court relies on basic principles of state contract law in interpreting a settlement agreement. Jeff D. v. Andrus, 899 F.2d 753, 759 (9th Cir.1989). California law requires mutual assent of the parties to form a valid contract. Meyer v. Benko, 55 Cal.App.3d 937 , 127 Cal. Rptr. 846, 848 (Cal.Ct.App.1976). Whether mutual assent existed is determined by objective criteria, the test being what the outward manifestations of consent would lead a reasonable person to believe. Id.

The parties here had discussed attorneys’ fees in previous settlement offers and,…