Michael Drescher v. Baby Its You LLC, 2:10-cv-06854

Parties include Plaintiff Drescher and Defendants Mutrux, BIY LLC, Northern Lights, Joncar, and Sanger; suit concerns alleged misappropriation of investment funds in BIY/MDQ projects.
The case progressed to a magistrate settlement conference on Oct. 20, 2011 where terms were placed on the record.
Terms: no immediate payment; 50%/50% back-end split from six plays with royalties netted; Plaintiff to receive up to $800,000; Plaintiff to gain a 1% interest in Mutrux’s 100% interest in all six shows plus 1% in one development show; payments to be made from Mutrux’s proceeds.
Draft Settlement Agreement memorialized terms; Plaintiff refused to sign draft arguing the Sharing Percentages were to run concurrently with recoupment and that Mutrux’s current equity interest was misrepresented.
Court grants motion to enforce settlement, finds October 20, 2011 oral agreement binding and the draft reflects its terms, and dismisses case with settlement enforced.
Court declines to add periodic statements or record inspections as terms not raised at the settlement conference and not part of the material terms on record.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the oral settlement is enforceable	Drescher argues terms may be incomplete or misrepresented.	Mutrux/MUTRUX argue terms were fully settled and codified in the draft.	Enforceable; oral settlement binding; draft reflects terms.
Whether the Draft accurately reflects the record terms	Terms like One Percent and Additional Sharing were misinterpreted.	Draft accurately reflects agreed terms; extrinsic evidence insufficient to alter.	Draft accurately reflects on-record terms.
Whether Sharing Percentages are contingent on full recoupment	Sharing Percentages should run concurrently with recoupment.	Sharing Percentages operate in addition to recoupment and accrue after; no condition precedent.	Sharing Percentages are in addition to recoupment, accruing after recoupment.
Whether Plaintiff is entitled to discovery about Mutrux’s future interests	Plaintiff seeks future increases in Mutrux’s interests.	Only current interests were identified; no duty to reveal future increases.	Discovery denied; termination reflects current interests only.

Doi v. Halekulani Corp., 276 F.3d 1131 (9th Cir. 2002) (oral settlement on record binding when terms placed on record)
In re City Equities Anaheim, Ltd., 22 F.3d 954 (9th Cir. 1994) (limits enforcement where material terms in dispute; need for hearing if disputed)
MetroNet Services Corp. v. U.S. West Commc’ns, 329 F.3d 986 (9th Cir. 2003) (court may enforce complete settlements; limits of summary enforcement)
Callie v. Near, 829 F.2d 888 (9th Cir. 1987) (requires complete settlement agreements; need for certainty of terms)
Walt Disney Pictures & Television v. Walt Disney Co., 162 Cal. App. 4th 1107 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008) (parol evidence admissible to interpret contract when language ambiguous)