Tai Ham v. Selectron International Optronics, LLC

MEMORANDUM ***

Defendants Selectron International Op-tronics, LLC, Selectron Management Corporation, and Richard Heathcote appeal the district court’s denial of their two motions to enforce a settlement agreement they entered into with Plaintiff Tai Ham dba Selectron Industrial Company, Inc. We review factual findings for clear error, conclusions of law de novo, and the application of local rules for abuse of discretion. See Aramark Facility Servs. v. Serv. Employees Int’l Union, Local 1877, 530 F.3d 817, 822 (9th Cir.2008) (factual findings and conclusions of law); Bias v. Moynihan, 508 F.3d 1212, 1223 (9th Cir.2007) (local rules). For the following reasons, we affirm.

First, the district court did not err in denying Defendants’ original motion to enforce the settlement agreement. See Callie v. Near, 829 F.2d 888, 890 (9th Cir.1987) (“[T]he district court may enforce only complete settlement agreements.”). The district court’s factual finding that the parties never agreed to the meaning of the ambiguous term “3 Beech Street” is not clearly erroneous. Because the parties did not have a meeting of the minds as to the meaning of this material term, the district court did not err…