Arebalo v. Apple, Inc.

Background

Joshua Arebalo, who represented himself, filed a disability-rights and wrongful-termination action against Apple. After negotiations, the parties signed a settlement agreement on May 19, 2021. The agreement required Apple, within 30 days of Arebalo’s signing, to provide information confirming that mini-break information existed and was available to employees on Apple’s intranet in 2017. The agreement stated that it would remain enforceable if Apple failed to provide the information on time and that Apple would then owe a financial penalty. The agreement also stated that it was the parties’ entire agreement and that Arebalo had not relied on outside statements by Apple.

Apple produced two documents: a post called “Refresh to De-Stress,” published on its Wellness Site in 2015, and a “Healthy Working” post. Apple provided URLs and stated that the second post had been available on its Ergonomics site in other forms since at least 2014. Arebalo argued that this production did not satisfy the settlement and moved to set aside the settlement and lift the stay. Apple moved to enforce the settlement.

Motion to Set Aside the Settlement

Arebalo relied on Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(3), which permits relief from an order because of fraud, misrepresentation, or misconduct. The court said he had to prove, by clear and convincing evidence, that fraud or misconduct that could not have been discovered with reasonable diligence prevented him from fully and fairly presenting his position.

The court rejected Arebalo’s fraud theory. It held that the settlement’s integration clause stated that he had not relied on statements outside the written agreement. The court also found that his evidence about employees’ inability to find mini-break information in 2019, 2020, or 2021 did not establish whether the information was available in 2017, which was the period covered by the settlement. The court further found that Arebalo knew during the case that the information was allegedly unavailable in 2019 and 2020, meaning the evidence was not undiscoverable through reasonable diligence. The court concluded that dissatisfaction with Apple’s representations and later regret about settling were not enough to establish fraud.

Motion to Enforce the Settlement

The court explained that it could enforce a settlement agreement in a pending case and that California contract law governed the agreement. It found that the parties mutually intended Apple to provide documents showing that mini-break information was available to employees on Apple’s intranet in 2017, in a way that a reasonable person could understand.

The court found that Apple had not fulfilled the production provision. The “Refresh to De-Stress” document showed publication in 2015 but did not establish that it was accessible to employees in 2017. The “Healthy Working” material likewise did not establish availability in 2017, and Apple’s statement that information had been available “in other forms” since at least 2014 was too vague. A later declaration from Apple’s Environmental Health and Safety Manager did not cure the problem, and additional posts were not timely produced.

The court nevertheless held that Apple’s failure did not permit Arebalo to set aside the settlement. Under the agreement, the remedy was for Apple to pay the specified penalty, while the settlement remained in full effect and enforceable. The court also found that Apple had complied with its other obligations and that Arebalo was required to file a stipulated dismissal, which he had not done. The court therefore denied Arebalo’s motion to set aside the settlement and lift the stay and granted Apple’s motion to enforce the settlement. Judge Edward J. Davila ordered Apple to pay the penalty and certify payment to the court; after that certification, the court said it would dismiss the action.