NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 25 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
THOMAS BODNAR, No. 20-55496
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 5:17-cv-01463-DSF-PLA
v.
MEMORANDUM*
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, Sheriffs
Department; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees,
and
GEMENDE, Sergeant; et al.,
Defendants.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Dale S. Fischer, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted March 16, 2021**
Before: GRABER, R. NELSON, and HUNSAKER, Circuit Judges.
Thomas Bodnar appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying his
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
post-judgment motion to reopen the case to add a cause of action for breach of an
oral settlement agreement. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We
review for abuse of discretion. Weeks v. Bayer, 246 F.3d 1231, 1234 (9th Cir.
2001). We affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Bodnar’s motion to
reopen his case because Bodnar failed to show that the parties entered into an oral
settlement agreement separate from the written settlement agreement. See Golden
v. Cal. Emergency Physicians Med. Grp., 782 F.3d 1083, 1089 (9th Cir. 2015)
(construction and enforcement of a settlement agreement is governed by local law
of contract interpretation); Banner Entm’t, Inc. v. Superior Court (Alchemy
Filmworks, Inc.), 72 Cal. Rptr. 2d 598, 603 (Ct. App. 1998) (“California law is
clear that there is no contract until there has been a meeting of the minds
on all material points.”); see also Cal. Civ. Code § 1550 (setting forth essential
elements to the existence of a contract under California law).
AFFIRMED.
2 20-55496