Kang v. Harrison, 17-cv-03034-DMR (MEJ). (2018)
Court: District Court, N.D. California
Number: infdco20180712833
Visitors: 4
Filed: Jul. 11, 2018
Latest Update: Jul. 11, 2018
Summary: ORDER RE: MOTION TO ENFORCE SETTLEMENT Re: Dkt. No. 52 MARIA-ELENA JAMES , Magistrate Judge . Pending before the Court is Plaintiff Shuting Kang's Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement. Dkt. No. 52. Defendants have filed an Opposition (Dkt. No. 55) and Plaintiff filed a Reply (Dkt. No. 56). The Court finds this matter suitable for disposition without oral argument. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 78(b); Civ. L.R. 7-1(b). Having considered the parties' positions and the record in this case, the Cour
Summary: ORDER RE: MOTION TO ENFORCE SETTLEMENT Re: Dkt. No. 52 MARIA-ELENA JAMES , Magistrate Judge . Pending before the Court is Plaintiff Shuting Kang's Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement. Dkt. No. 52. Defendants have filed an Opposition (Dkt. No. 55) and Plaintiff filed a Reply (Dkt. No. 56). The Court finds this matter suitable for disposition without oral argument. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 78(b); Civ. L.R. 7-1(b). Having considered the parties' positions and the record in this case, the Court..
More
ORDER RE: MOTION TO ENFORCE SETTLEMENT
Re: Dkt. No. 52
MARIA-ELENA JAMES, Magistrate Judge.
Pending before the Court is Plaintiff Shuting Kang's Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement. Dkt. No. 52. Defendants have filed an Opposition (Dkt. No. 55) and Plaintiff filed a Reply (Dkt. No. 56). The Court finds this matter suitable for disposition without oral argument. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 78(b); Civ. L.R. 7-1(b). Having considered the parties' positions and the record in this case, the Court finds the non-disparagement was not a condition precedent to payment of the settlement sum. Accordingly, Defendants are ORDERED to pay Plaintiff all sums owed under the settlement agreement within 10 days of this Order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
