Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Sean M. Berry and Patricia Berry sued Zachary Petri in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California, Case No. 25-cv-02367-BAS-DEB. Two motions were pending: Petri's motion to enforce a settlement (ECF No. 30) and Sean Berry's motion for a preliminary injunction (ECF No. 24). The Berrys filed no opposition to the enforcement motion. On October 15, 2026, Chief Judge Cynthia Bashant issued an order resolving both motions and directing the Clerk of Court to close the action.
The dispute arose from an Early Neutral Evaluation Conference before Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Butcher on July 29, 2026. According to the order, the magistrate judge read the settlement terms on the record, including payment of $2,500 to the Berrys, and both parties agreed; each plaintiff answered 'yes' when asked whether the terms had been accurately and completely stated. The next day, the Berrys told Petri they no longer agreed, declined his check, and returned a draft written settlement agreement without comment. They repeated their changed position at an August 17, 2026 telephonic status conference, and Petri did not agree to any modification of the terms.
The Court’s Holding
The court granted Petri's motion to enforce the settlement. It explained that a district court has the equitable power to summarily enforce an agreement to settle a pending case when the agreement is complete—its existence and terms undisputed—and both parties agreed to the terms or authorized counsel to settle. The court found the July 29, 2026 on-the-record agreement complete because both sides accepted the terms the magistrate judge memorialized, and it held that the Berrys' later change of heart did not undo the binding oral agreement, particularly because Petri never consented to changed terms. Independently, the court stated that the Berrys' failure to file an opposition permitted granting the motion under the local civil rules.
The court also denied Sean Berry's preliminary-injunction motion, and the order describes that denial in two ways. The introduction states that the court 'DENIES AS MOOT' the motion, while the analysis denies it because the motion did not address the four Winter factors—likely success on the merits, likely irreparable harm without relief, a favorable balance of equities, and the public interest—and adds that, given the settlement, the denial is with prejudice; the conclusion likewise states that the court 'DENIES WITH PREJUDICE' the motion. The final order therefore granted enforcement of the settlement, denied the injunction motion, and directed the Clerk of Court to close the present action.
Key Takeaways
- An oral settlement recited and confirmed on the record at an Early Neutral Evaluation Conference can be enforced even if a party later refuses to sign a written agreement or accept payment.
- A later change of heart does not undo the agreement where the other party never consented to modified terms.
- The Berrys' failure to oppose the motion to enforce settlement supplied an independent basis for granting it under the local civil rules.
- Sean Berry's preliminary-injunction motion failed because it did not address the Winter factors; the order's introduction called the denial moot, while its analysis and conclusion denied the motion with prejudice given the settlement.
- After granting enforcement and denying the injunction motion, the court directed the Clerk of Court to close the action.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates that a federal district court can summarily enforce a settlement confirmed on the record during an early neutral evaluation, without waiting for a signed writing, and that a party's post-agreement change of heart is ineffective absent the other side's consent to modification.
It also shows the separate burdens facing a party seeking a preliminary injunction: a motion that does not address likelihood of success, irreparable harm, the balance of equities, and the public interest does not justify the extraordinary remedy. The order's mixed description of the injunction denial—moot in the introduction, with prejudice in the conclusion—reflects that the settlement mooted the request while the merits analysis independently failed, and the clerk was directed to close the case.