Ellerd
Ellerd v. County of Los Angeles
Opinion
Lead Opinion
MEMORANDUM **
Arthur Ellerd and Tammy Le appeal the district court’s orders enforcing a settlement agreement between Ellerd, Le and the County of Los Angeles.
We have jurisdiction to review the district court’s final orders enforcing the settlement agreement under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . See Adams v. Johns-Manville Corp., 876 F.2d 702, 704 (9th Cir.1989). *670 We review enforcement of a settlement agreement for an abuse of discretion. See Doi v. Halekulani Corp., 276 F.3d 1131, 1136 (9th Cir.2002). “Reversal is appropriate only if the court based its decision on an error of law or clearly erroneous findings of fact.” Maynard v. City of San Jose, 37 F.3d 1396, 1401 (9th Cir.1994) (quotation omitted).
The parties dispute whether federal or state law governs the determination that the parties reached an enforceable settlement. It is unnecessary for us to decide this issue because to the extent that federal and California law differ, the result is the same even under the law most favorable to Ellerd and Le.
Under both California and federal law, settlement agreements are unenforceable when an essential term is uncertain or undefined. See Transamerica Equip. Leasing Corp. v. Union Bank,…