Aardvark Partnership v. John W. Disterdick v. Charles E. Brink, Cross-Claim-Respondent-Appellant

89 F.3d 844 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. AARDVARK PARTNERSHIP, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. John W. DISTERDICK, et al., Defendants, v. Charles E. BRINK, Cross-Claim-Respondent-Appellant. No. 95-55296. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Submitted June 4, 1996. * Decided June 24, 1996. Before: FARRIS, FERNANDEZ, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges. 1 MEMORANDUM ** 2 Charles Brink appeals an order of the district court holding him in contempt for misappropriating funds held in the T & FP Litigation Fund, a trust created by the Disterdick settlement agreement. Brink contends that the district court lacked jurisdiction to hold him in contempt, and that even if it had jurisdiction, it misinterpreted the Disterdick settlement agreement. 3 In Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of America, the Supreme Court explained that because "[f]ederal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction," an action is presumed to "lie[ ] outside this limited jurisdiction." 114 S.Ct.…