San Francisco Aesthetics and Laser Medicine Incorporated; Jeannie Tsai, M.d. v. the Presidio Trust; Danielle McKinney; Erin Magagna

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SAN FRANCISCO AESTHETICS AND
LASER MEDICINE INCORPORATED;
JEANNIE TSAI, M.D.,
Plaintiffs - Appellants,
v.
THE PRESIDIO TRUST; DANIELLE
MCKINNEY; ERIN MAGAGNA,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 09-17005
D.C. No. 3:07-cv-05170-EDL
MEMORANDUM*
SAN FRANCISCO AESTHETICS AND
LASER MEDICINE INCORPORATED;
JEANNIE TSAI, M.D.,
Plaintiffs - Appellants,
v.
THE PRESIDIO TRUST; DANIELLE
MCKINNEY; ERIN MAGAGNA,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 10-17607
D.C. No. 3:07-cv-05170-EDL
FILED
OCT 19 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 4 --

** The Honorable Marilyn L. Huff, District Judge for the U.S. District
Court for Southern California, San Diego, sitting by designation.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Elizabeth D. Laporte, Magistrate Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted October 14, 2011
San Francisco, California
Before: THOMAS and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges, and HUFF, District Judge. **
San Francisco Aesthetics and Laser Medicine, Inc. and Dr. Jeannie Tsai
appeal the district court’s judgment enforcing a settlement agreement. We affirm.
Because the parties are familiar with the history of the cases, we need not recount it
here. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and consider the issues
presented in both cases. See Litchfield v. Spielberg, 736 F.2d 1352, 1355 (9th Cir.
1984) (“An appeal from a final judgment draws in question all earlier, non-final
orders and rulings which produced the judgment.”).
I
We review a district court’s decision to enforce a settlement agreement for
abuse of discretion. Doi v. Halekulani Corp., 276 F.3d 1131, 1136 (9th Cir. 2002).
The district court did not abuse its discretion in enforcing the settlement by
entering judgment in accordance with the terms of the Amended Stipulated
Judgment. When parties orally settle a dispute in open court, the terms of their
written agreement need not be “fully spelled out at the settlement hearing” so long

-- 2 of 4 --

-3-
as they are “in full accord with the terms of agreement stated in open court.” Id. at
1139.
Here, where the parties could not distill their oral settlement into a written
agreement, the district court adopted most of The Presidio Trust’s written proposed
stipulated judgment because it “accurately reflect[ed] the substance of the parties’
settlement agreement as orally recorded.” Report and Recommendation re Motion
and Cross Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement at 10, San Francisco
Aesthetics v. The Presidio Trust, No. CV 07-05170 (N.D.Cal. June 3, 2009);
Judgment, San Francisco Aesthetics v. The Presidio Trust, No. CV 07-05170
(N.D.Cal. Aug. 14, 2009).
Under our deferential standard of review, and considering the record as a
whole, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in
determining that the Amended Stipulated Judgment was in accord with the terms of
the parties’ oral settlement agreement.
II
The district court did not abuse its discretion in calculating the amount due
under the Amended Stipulated Judgment. The settlement agreement provided that
the court would resolve any dispute over the calculation of the amount due. In
calculating this amount, the court determined that The Presidio Trust did not waive

-- 3 of 4 --

-4-
its damages claims. Several provisions in the Amended Stipulated Judgment
support this finding. The court also determined that The Presidio Trust was
entitled to collect late payment penalties and interest. This was also permitted
under the Amended Stipulated Judgment and authorized by law. See 36 C.F.R. §
1011.5(a)(2).
San Francisco Aesthetics contends that late payments and default interest are
illegal under California law. However, under the federal enclave doctrine,
California law is inapplicable in this case because it is inconsistent with federal
law. James Stewart & Co. v. Sadrakula, 309 U.S. 94, 99-100 (1940).
AFFIRMED.

-- 4 of 4 --