Hicks v. Robles

Summary

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of California adopted in full the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations and denied Michael James Hicks’s second motion to withdraw from a settlement agreement. The court concluded that defendants did not breach the settlement agreement by failing to pay identified financial obligations because they attempted to make the required payments, plaintiff’s actions prevented one payment, and the returned filing-fee funds were available to plaintiff.

Holdings

1. Hicks did not establish fraud, intent to deceive, or a material misrepresentation by defendants sufficient to rescind the settlement agreement.
2. Defendants did not breach any assumed obligation to pay the filing fee because they sent a check to the Northern District of California, the check was not cashed for reasons outside their control, and the funds were returned to Hicks's account.
3. Defendants did not breach the settlement agreement because Hicks prevented performance by refusing to sign the Trust Account Withdrawal Order required for payment of the non-court-ordered obligation.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Hicks established a basis to rescind the settlement agreement based on fraud or misrepresentation.
2. Whether defendants breached the settlement agreement by failing to pay the filing fee and the obligation relating to property damage.
3. Whether Hicks was entitled to damages or enforcement of the settlement agreement based on the alleged nonperformance.

Disposition

denied