Valles v. Fort Mason
- Saundra Armstrong
- 4:20-cv-04192
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 6
In Valles v. Fort Mason, Judge Armstrong approved a $100,000 settlement and ordered dismissal with prejudice of claims against the United States.
Daniel Valles and the United States of America were directly affected. The order dismissed the case with prejudice as against the United States; the opinion does not state a separate disposition for the other named defendants.
What happened
In Valles v. Fort Mason, Daniel Valles and the United States agreed to settle claims arising from the events involved in the case. The United States agreed to pay $100,000, and the settlement did not admit liability or fault.
The agreement released the United States and covered related claims, including claims that were unknown when the agreement was signed. Each side agreed to pay its own costs and fees, with the agreement stating that attorney fees could not exceed 25% of the settlement amount.
Judge Saundra B. Armstrong approved the parties’ stipulation and ordered dismissal with prejudice of the case against the United States, including claims brought or that could have been brought against it.
The detailed version
- Valles v. Fort Mason · No. 4:20-cv-04192
- Saundra Armstrong
- Sept. 7, 2022
Background
Daniel Valles filed the action against Fort Mason, The General’s Residence, The Guardsmen, the National Park Service, the United States of America, and Does 1 to 50. The stipulation states that the action was filed on June 25, 2020. The parties had agreed to avoid further litigation and to settle the claims and issues raised, or that could have been raised, based on events occurring before the settlement agreement.
The stipulation also states that, on August 23, 2022, the court granted the United States’ motion for a determination that the settlement was made in good faith.
Settlement Terms
The United States agreed to pay Daniel Valles $100,000 in full settlement of claims arising from the subject matter of the action. The agreement covered known and unknown claims, including claims involving personal injuries, property damage, and wrongful death. It also released claims against the United States, including its current and former agents, employees, attorneys, the Department of the Interior, and the National Park Service.
The agreement stated that the settlement was not an admission of liability or fault and that the United States denied liability. The parties agreed to bear their own costs, fees, and expenses. Attorney fees for services connected with the action could not exceed 25% of the settlement amount under 28 U.S.C. § 2678. The payment was to be made by check, and the agreement stated that the United States expected, but could not guarantee, payment within 90 days after all parties executed the agreement.
Court’s Order
The parties stipulated that approval of the agreement would constitute dismissal with prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a) of the case against the United States, including all claims asserted or that could have been asserted against the United States. “With prejudice” means those claims cannot be brought again. The order states: “Pursuant to stipulation, it is so ordered.” Judge Saundra B. Armstrong approved the settlement and ordered dismissal with prejudice as specified in the stipulation. The agreement states that Judge Jacqueline S. Corley would retain jurisdiction over disputes concerning enforcement of the settlement agreement.
Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.