Lydia Mary Moran v. County of Tulare, Department of Health Services

Good Law
99 F.3d 1146·1996 WL 622748·1996 U.S. App. LEXIS 41894
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitOctober 25, 199695-16367California273 words

Opinion

Opinion

99 F.3d 1146 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. Lydia Mary MORAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. COUNTY OF TULARE, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES, Defendant-Appellee. No. 95-16367. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Submitted July 29, 1996. * Decided Oct. 25, 1996. Before: HUG, Chief Judge, SCHROEDER and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges. 1 MEMORANDUM ** 2 Lydia Mary Moran appeals pro se the district court's order granting defendant's motion to enforce the settlement agreement. We have jurisdiction pursuant to the collateral order doctrine, see Richardson-Merrell, Inc. v. Koller, 472 U.S. 424, 431 (1985), and we reverse. 3 After a de novo review of the settlement agreement, see Davies v. Grossmont Union High School Dist., 930 F.2d 1390 , 1394 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 501 U.S. 1252 (1991), we conclude that the language of paragraph 9 of the settlement agreement is clear and unambiguous. It does not imply that, before Moran can be reinstated, Moran must submit to a…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.