Thoburn

MEMORANDUM *

Global Encasement, Inc. and George Keefe (collectively “Appellants”) appeal the district court’s order granting John Thoburn’s motion to enforce the parties’ settlement agreement, including a non-party release, and dismissing the action without prejudice. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm. Because the parties are familiar with the procedural and factual history of the case, we do not recount it here except as necessary to explain our decision.

We review the district court’s decision to enforce the settlement agreement for an abuse of discretion. Maynard v. City of San Jose, 37 F.3d 1396, 1401 (9th Cir.1994). Reversal is appropriate only if the court based its decision upon an error of law or clearly erroneous findings of fact. Id. We review de novo, and under California law, the district court’s interpretation of the oral settlement agreement reached by the parties on the record. See United Commercial Ins. Serv., Inc. v. Paymaster Corp., 962 F.2d 853 , 856 (9th Cir.1992).

A settlement agreement is treated as any other contract for purposes of interpretation. Id. Under California law, the mutual intent of the parties at the time of…