Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_03-cv-02908/USCOURTS-cand-3_03-cv-02908-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:2000e Job Discrimination (Employment)

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

On September 8, 2005, plaintiff filed a document titled “Motion in Response to Court

Order Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress,” and, on September 9, 2005, a document

titled “Motion of Ms. Queen Esther Jackson in Response to Court Order to Set Aside

Settlement Conference of October 13, 2004 and Plaintiff Pleas for New Hearing.” The

Court has construed these two documents to be plaintiffs’ replies in support of her motions.

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

QUEEN ESTHER JACKSON,

Plaintiff,

 v.

POSTMASTER GENERAL JOHN E.

POTTER,

Defendant /

No. C 03-2908 MMC

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION TO SET ASIDE ORDER;

GRANTING MOTION TO CLARIFY

Before the Court is plaintiff Queen Esther Jackson’s “Proposed Order Plaintiffs

Opposition to Compromise Settlement, to be Signed by Judge Chesney,” filed August 4,

2005, and which the Court, by order filed August 17, 2005, has construed as a motion to

set aside the Court’s Order Granting Defendant’s Motion to Enforce Settlement. Also

before the Court is plaintiff’s motion, filed August 4, 2005, by which plaintiff requests

clarification of the Court’s Order Granting Defendant’s Motion to Enforce Settlement. 

Defendant Postmaster General John E. Potter has filed a response to plaintiff’s motions, to

which plaintiff has replied.1

 Having considered the papers filed by the parties, the Court

rules as follows.

Case 3:03-cv-02908-MMC Document 60 Filed 09/20/05 Page 1 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

A. Motion to Set Aside Order Granting Defendant’s Motion to Enforce Settlement

By order filed July 25, 2005, the Court granted defendant’s motion to enforce a

settlement agreement, finding a settlement had been reached at a conference conducted

on October 13, 2004 by Magistrate Judge Maria Elena James. Plaintiff now seeks to set

aside the Court’s order on the ground that plaintiff did not agree to settle her claims.

In her opposition to defendant’s motion to enforce the settlement agreement, plaintiff

argued that the proposed written settlement agreement offered by defendant did not

comport with the terms of the parties’ oral agreement. (See, e.g., Pl.’s Opp. to Def.’s Mot.

to Enforce Settlement, filed July 15, 2005, at 3:8-9 (“The settlement agreement that

[d]efendant wanted [p]laintiff to sign does not reflect the facts and understanding that Judge

Maria Elena James set forth in the settlement conference on October 13, 2004.”).) The

argument that plaintiff now makes, specifically, that she did not agree to settle her claims at

all, is an entirely different argument. Plaintiff’s new argument is not based on “newly

discovered evidence which by due diligence could not have been discovered” as of July 15,

2005, and thus is not a sufficient ground for reconsideration. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(2).

Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion to set aside the Court’s order will be denied.

B. Motion for Clarification

Plaintiff requests, in two respects, clarification of the Court’s order enforcing the

settlement. The Court will grant the motion, and, accordingly, provides the following

clarification.

1. Crediting Plaintiff for 35 Years of Service

First, plaintiff asks, “Does the Order Granting Defendant’s Motion to Enforce

Settlement require the Defendant to deposit $14,941 into Plaintiff’s retirement account with

the Office of Personnel Management, in order for Plaintiff to be credited for 35 years of

service?” (See Pl.’s Mot. Requesting Clarification at 1:34-37.)

Although the Court’s order enforcing the parties’ agreement does not expressly

reference defendant’s obligation with respect to the deposit of additional sums, the order

does set forth the parties’ agreement that plaintiff is eligible to retire “with credit for 35

Case 3:03-cv-02908-MMC Document 60 Filed 09/20/05 Page 2 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

years, 1 month, and 9 days of service (‘35 years’), and without the need for plaintiff to make

further deposits into her retirement account to obtain such credit.” (See Order Granting

Def’s Mot. to Enforce Settlement at 2:3-5.) Similarly, the Order of Compromise Settlement

provides: “Plaintiff is not required to deposit additional monies into her retirement account

in order to obtain credit for 35 years of service.” (See Order of Compromise Settlement,

filed August 2, 2005, ¶ 3.)

Defendant’s response to plaintiff’s motion for clarification relies on the declaration of

Marietta Harris (“Harris”), who hypothesizes that plaintiff may be required to redeposit

withdrawn sums in the amount of $14,941 into her retirement account in order to receive

credit for 35 years of service. (See Harris Decl., filed August 25, 2005, ¶ 5.) Defendant’s

interpretation of the parties’ agreement is unpersuasive. Indeed, Harris, the declarant on

which defendant relies, was present at the settlement conference and, along with counsel

for defendant, placed the terms of the parties’ agreement on the record, including the term

that plaintiff is not required to make any additional payments into her retirement account in

order to obtain credit for 35 years of service, and, in particular, the sum of $14,941. (See

Rutter Decl., filed June 22, 2005, Ex. A at 3-4.)

To answer plaintiff’s question directly, the Court clarifies that its order does not

dictate the precise step or steps defendant must take in order to afford plaintiff credit for 35

years of service. If defendant is able to accomplish such result in some manner other than

by making payments into plaintiff’s account, defendant is entitled to do so. Defendant,

however, is not allowed, under the express terms of the parties’ agreement, to require

plaintiff to make additional deposits.

2. Worker’s Compensation Benefits

Second, plaintiff asks the Court to find that “[t]he order does not require Plaintiff to

waive Plaintiff’s rights to continue to receive Worker’s Compensation Benefits.” (See Pl.’s

Mot. Requesting Clarification at 1:41-42.)

Both parties represent that, at the present time, plaintiff is receiving workers

compensation benefits for a job-related injury. Nothing in the Court’s order enforcing the

Case 3:03-cv-02908-MMC Document 60 Filed 09/20/05 Page 3 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

4

parties’ agreement requires that plaintiff “waive” such benefits in order to receive the

consideration promised by defendant. Rather, the parties’ agreement is that plaintiff is

“entitle[d] to retire” with “35 years of service,” (see Order of Compromise Settlement ¶ 2);

no specific deadline by which plaintiff is required to retire is included in the parties’

agreement.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated:

1. Plaintiff’s motion to set aside the Court’s order enforcing the parties’ agreement is

hereby DENIED; and

2. Plaintiff’s motion for clarification is hereby GRANTED, and clarification is

provided as above.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 20, 2005 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:03-cv-02908-MMC Document 60 Filed 09/20/05 Page 4 of 4