that it reasonably believed Goldman had the right to cancel the contract. Again, in limine rulings are not binding on the district court. Id. 4. The district court did not give erroneous jury instructions. Revised Arizona Jury Instructions (Civil), 4th Edition 21 and 23 mirror Arizona law. See Fairway was not prejudiced by the late filing. Sueños was not required to show excusable neglect. 7. The district court abused its discretion in determining that Sueños was the prevailing party in. its action against Goldman. The district court held that the parties’ settlement discussions were inadmissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 408(a), and that the court therefore could not consider them. The district court erred. See Ingram v. Oroudjian, 647 F.3d 925, 927 (9th Cir.2011) (per curiam) (<HOLDING>); see also A.D. v. Cal. Highway Patrol, 712
holding that in deciding whether the jurys award is inadequate the test is whether reasonable people could not conclude that the  award was reasonable compensation recognizing the opportunity for mischief in settlement negotiations where the insurer has declined involvement  which may be checked by judicial review of whether the settlement amount stipulated to is reasonable holding a court may eonsider settlement negotiations for the purpose of deciding a reasonable attorney fee award recognizing discretion of district court in determining a fee award holding a settlement privilege exists as to thirdparty discovery of settlement negotiations