889 F. 2d 1095 - Oshita v. Falinski
889 F2d 1095 Oshita v. Falinski
889 F.2d 1095
Unpublished Disposition
NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel.
Nancy Kayo OSHITA, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
Leonard James FALINSKI, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 88-15238.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Argued and Submitted Oct. 4, 1989.
Decided Nov. 16, 1989.
Before TANG, CYNTHIA HOLCOMB HALL and BRUNETTI, Circuit Judges.
Advertisement
MEMORANDUM*
In this case, Nancy Kayo Oshita ("Oshita") appeals from a district court order requiring Oshita to sign various settlement documents and, should Oshita fail to sign the documents, dismissing her action with prejudice.
On May 9, 1988, the parties attended a pre-trial conference with Judge Raul A. Ramirez. During the conference, both parties orally consented to Judge Ramirez's converting the pre-trial conference into a settlement conference. As a result of settlement negotiations, the parties reached an oral settlement agreement.
Oshita then changed her mind and refused to sign the settlement agreement documents unless Falinski agreed to additional terms not contained in the oral agreement reached before Judge Ramirez. Consequently, upon motion by Falinski, the district court ordered Oshita to sign the settlement papers within ten days. The court further ordered that, should Oshita fail to sign the settlement documents as required, the action would be dismissed with prejudice on the eleventh day following the order.
Oshita appealed the above-described order. The court may dismiss an action with prejudice "[f]or failure of the plaintiff to prosecute or to comply with ... any order of court." Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b). Since the trial court properly ordered Oshita to sign settlement papers to complete a settlement agreed to by Oshita that would result in dismissal of the action with prejudice, the court did not abuse its discretion in ordering dismissal of the action with prejudice for Oshita's failure to sign these settlement papers.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Circuit Rule 36-3