BODNAR v. Gemende, Sergeant; et al., Defendants. (2021)

MEMORANDUM **

Thomas Bodnar appeals pro se from the district court's order denying his 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.), 62 Cal.App.4th 348, 72 Cal. Rptr. 2d 598, 603 (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.