NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS SEP 23 2025

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

LISA DANIELLE BRESLAW, Nos. 24-1301 25-567 Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:23-cv-01680-APG-MDC v.

MEMORANDUM*

STATE OF NEVADA, ex rel. Board of Regents of the Nevada System of Higher Education, on behalf of College of Southern Nevada,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada Andrew P. Gordon, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted September 17, 2025**

Before: SILVERMAN, OWENS, and BRESS, Circuit Judges.

In these companion appeals, Lisa Danielle Breslaw appeals pro se from the

district court’s orders granting defendant’s motion to enforce a settlement

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes these cases are suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). agreement and denying reconsideration of an order denying post-judgment relief in

her employment discrimination action. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.

§ 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion. Doi v. Halekulani Corp., 276 F.3d

1131, 1136 (9th Cir. 2002) (enforcement of a settlement agreement); Sch. Dist. No.

1J, Multnomah County, Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262 (9th Cir. 1993)

(denial of a motion for reconsideration). We affirm.

In Appeal No. 24-1301, the district court did not abuse its discretion in

enforcing the settlement agreement because Breslaw does not contend that she

lacked the ability to understand the terms of the agreement. See Jeff D. v. Andrus,

899 F.2d 753, 759 (9th Cir. 1989) (“The construction and enforcement of

settlement agreements are governed by principles of local law which apply to

interpretation of contracts generally.”); Gen. Motors v. Jackson, 900 P.2d 345, 349

(Nev. 1995) (“[T]he capacity to contract involves a person’s inability to understand

the terms of an agreement . . . .”).

In Appeal No. 25-567, the district court did not abuse its discretion in

denying Breslaw’s motion for reconsideration because Breslaw did not identify

evidence warranting reconsideration or an evidentiary hearing. See Sch. Dist. No.

1J, 5 F.3d at 1263 (setting forth grounds for reconsideration under Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure 59 and 60); see also Feature Realty, Inc. v. City of Spokane, 331

F.3d 1082, 1093 (9th Cir. 2003) (“[T]he newly discovered evidence must be of

2 24-1301, 25-567 ‘such magnitude that production of it earlier would have been likely to change the

disposition of the case.’” (citation omitted)).

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued

in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

Breslaw’s motion to supplement the record (Docket Entry No. 25) is denied

as unnecessary because the referenced material is already part of the record on

appeal. Breslaw’s motion to consolidate (Docket Entry No. 30) is denied.

AFFIRMED.

3 24-1301, 25-567