Cluster 582656 (1992)

Serv., Inc., 962 F.2d at 856 (“The construction and enforcement of settlement agreements are governed by principles of local law which apply to interpretation of contracts generally.”); Taylor v. Johnston, 15 Cal.3d 130 , 123 Cal.Rptr. 641 , 539 P.2d 425, 430 (1975) (discussing the requirements for establishing repudiation under California law).

This judgment was appealed and affirmed by this Court in Paymaster, 962 F.2d at 858.

Sec. 1291 , and we affirm. 3 Carlson contends that the district court erred by enforcing the settlement agreement because she did not voluntarily agree to settle. 1 This contention lacks merit. 4 "The construction and enforcement of settlement agreements are governed by the principles of local law which apply to interpretation of contracts generally." United Commercial Ins. v. The Paymaster Corp., 962 F.2d 853, 856 (9th Cir.) (internal quotation omitted), cert. denied, 113 S…

United Commercial, 962 F.2d at 856. 15 The district court's imposition of sanctions is reviewed for an abuse of discretion.

Serv., Inc., 962 F.2d at 856. 22 A party’s true intent is irrelevant if not expressed.

Serv., Inc. v. Paymaster 1 Corps., 962 F.2d 853, 856 (9th Cir. 1992)).

Serv., Inc. v. The Paymaster Corp., 962 F.2d 853, 856 (9th Cir. 1992) 21 (citation omitted). 5 May v. Anderson, 119 P.3d 1254, 1258 (Nev. 2005). 22 6 Ellison v. Cal. State Auto.

Ins., 962 F.2d at 857.

“Under California law, ‘[a] settlement agreement is a contract, 5 and the legal principles which apply to contracts generally apply to settlement contracts.’” Ashker 6 v. Newson, 968 F.3d 939, 944 (9th Cir. 2020) (quoting Monster Energy, 7 Cal. 5th at 789 ) 7 (internal footnote omitted). 8 “Under California law, the intent of the parties determines the meaning of the contract. 9 The relevant intent is ‘objective’—that is, the intent manifested in the agreement and by 10 surr…

Serv., Inc. v. The Paymaster 23 Corp., 962 F.2d 853, 856 (9th Cir. 1992).

Serv., Inc. v. Paymaster Corp., 962 F.2d 853 , 858 (9th Cir. 1992) (“Where factual questions not readily ascertainable from the declarations of witnesses or questions of credibility predominate, the district court should hear oral testimony.”) (emphasis added).

Servs., Inc. v. Paymaster 25 Corp., 962 F.2d 853 , 856 (9th Cir. 1992) (“the construction and 26 enforcement of settlement agreements are governed by principles 27 of local law which apply to interpretation of contracts 28 generally.”). -11- 1 Although Ms. Riihimaki did not cross-appeal, she argues that 2 the bankruptcy court should have applied federal law to determine 3 the question of Ms. Christensen’s authority to settle the 4 nondischargeability action because the under…

See Gorman v. Holte, 164 Cal.App.3d 984, 988 , 211 Cal.Rptr. 34 (Cal.Ct.App.1985); United Commercial, 962 F.2d at 856. (“A settlement agreement is treated as any other contract for purposes of interpretation.”).

Serv., 962 F.2d at 858; 11 MooRE § 43.05[2], Second, the problem is particularly acute in the context of a motion for summary judgment where a genuine issue of material fact normally warrants a trial.

Serv., Inc. v. Paymaster 23 || Corp., 962 F.2d 853 , 856 (9th Cir. 1992) (internal citations and quotations omitted); see 24 |lalso Adams v. Johns-Manville Corp., 962 F.2d 853 , 856 (9th Cir. 1992) (stating “Tal 25 || settlement agreement is treated as any other contract for purposes of interpretation.”).