Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_08-cv-00026/USCOURTS-cand-3_08-cv-00026-13/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
John E. Potter
Defendant
Katherine Williams
Plaintiff

Document Text:

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KATHERINE WILLIAMS,

Plaintiff,

 v.

JOHN E. POTTER, 

POSTMASTER GENERAL,

Defendant. /

No. C 08-00026 WHA

ORDER DENYING

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

FOR REVIEW OF DISMISSAL

This pro se employment action was settled at a settlement conference held before

Magistrate Judge Maria-Elena James in January 2009. Plaintiff subsequently filed three

requests for relief from her decision to settle. All were denied because plaintiff had entered a

valid, binding settlement. Plaintiff now moves yet again for relief from the settlement, this time

on the grounds that defendant did not comply with the terms of settlement. Specifically,

plaintiff argues that pursuant to the settlement, defendant was to deliver a settlement check to

plaintiff by noon on April 2, 2009. Although defendant attempted to comply by delivering the

check to her door on March 31, 2009, plaintiff refused to accept delivery. Plaintiff admits that

defendant thereafter timely left the check in her mailbox on April 1, 2009, but she argues that

this delivery was “null and void” because the check was not mailed through the postal service. 

Plaintiff’s argument is nonsensical. She has not stated a valid ground for relief from the

settlement into which she voluntarily entered. Nor has she brought her motion for relief within 

Case 3:08-cv-00026-WHA Document 83 Filed 05/12/10 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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 reasonable time. The case has been closed for more than a year. Her motion is therefore

DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 12, 2010. WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:08-cv-00026-WHA Document 83 Filed 05/12/10 Page 2 of 2