Barton

MEMORANDUM ***

Albertsons appeals the district court order of April 11, 2003 granting Appellees’ motion to enforce the class settlement agreement between the parties and denying Albertsons’ cross-motion to enforce. 1 The district court held that the settlement did not bar class counsel from contacting class members and assisting them in curing claim deficiencies. We find that the settlement’s terms do not bar such assistance of counsel, and therefore affirm the district court order.

As a threshold matter, Appellees argue the appeal should be dismissed as moot because the Court can no longer provide an effective remedy to Albertsons. We disagree. A case is moot when no live controversy exists between the parties or when the court can no longer provide a cognizable legal remedy. See, e.g., Friends of the Payette v. Horseshoe Bend Hydroelec., 988 F.2d 989 , 996 (9th Cir. 1993). Our mootness doctrine does not require that the exact legal remedy sought below remain available, only that the Court can grant some effective relief. AW Envtl. Def. Ctr. v. Gordon, 849 F.2d 1241, 1244-45 (9th Cir.1988).

In interpreting settlements, this Court has held that “familiar principles of contract…