Lorang

Lorang v. Fortis Insurance

Good Law
135 F. App'x 117
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJune 17, 2005No. 04-35092California303 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM *

Defendant Fortis Insurance Company appeals from the district court’s denial of its motion to enforce a 1999 Settlement Agreement it signed with Plaintiffs John and Bonnie Lorang. We affirm.

The terms of the 1999 Settlement Agreement were fulfilled completely before Plaintiffs filed their pending case in state court. Defendant paid the agreed sum to Plaintiffs and covered their expenses related to the 1998 replacement socket.

Plaintiffs’ state court complaint alleges, in addition to a state statutory claim, a breach of the insurance policy in 2002, not a breach of the 1999 Agreement. 1 For that reason, Flanagan v. Arnaiz, 143 F.3d 540 (9th Cir.1998), is distinguishable. The mere fact that the parties contemplated a particular interpretation of their contract, and that Plaintiffs are using that interpretation as evidence of Defendant’s alleged later breach of the renewed insurance policy, does not mean that the parties also *118 contemplated that any future dispute pertaining to after-occurring events would be heard in federal court. The district court is in the best position to interpret its own intentions when it retained jurisdiction “for the limited purpose of…

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.