NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ERIN LOFTUS, individually and as 

Successor-in-Interest to the Estate of David 

Loftus, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

 v. 

DANIEL LOFTUS, Interested Party, 

Movant-Appellant.

No. 16-15275 

D.C. No. 3:15-cv-01354-JSC 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of California

Jacqueline Scott Corley, Magistrate Judge, Presiding**

Submitted February 15, 2019***

Before: TROTT, SILVERMAN, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.

Daniel Loftus appeals pro se from the district court’s order clarifying the 

terms of a settlement agreement. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. 

 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The parties and Daniel Loftus consented to proceed before a 

magistrate judge. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).

*** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

FEB 20 2019

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 16-15275 

We review de novo the district court’s interpretation of a settlement agreement. 

City of Emeryville v. Robinson, 621 F.3d 1251, 1261 (9th Cir. 2010). We affirm.

Daniel Loftus has standing to bring this appeal despite his nonparty status

because he participated in the district court proceedings, entered into a settlement 

agreement resolving the litigation, and the district court entertained his motion for 

clarification and entered an order adverse to his interests. See S. Cal. Edison Co. v. 

Lynch, 307 F.3d 794, 804 (9th Cir. 2002) (a nonparty may appeal when “(1) the 

appellant, though not a party, participated in the district court proceedings, and (2) 

the equities of the case weigh in favor of hearing the appeal” (citation and internal 

quotation marks omitted)).

The district court correctly concluded that the terms of the settlement 

agreement resolve the disputed issue of Daniel Loftus’s entitlement to any 

settlement proceeds as a beneficiary of the estate of David Loftus, and that, the 

parties intended that all settlement proceeds awarded to Erin Loftus be paid to her 

in her individual capacity. See Cal. Civ. Code § 1639 (“When a contract is 

reduced to writing, the intention of the parties is to be ascertained from the writing 

alone, if possible[.]”); Botefur v. City of Eagle Point, 7 F.3d 152, 156 (9th 

Cir. 1993) (interpretation of a settlement agreement is governed by principles of 
3 16-15275 

state contract law). 

We reject as without merit Daniel Loftus’s contention that the district court 

should have held a hearing or oral argument before ruling on his motion for 

clarification. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 78(b); N.D. Cal. Civ. L.R. 7-1(b) (“In the Judge’s 

discretion . . . a motion may be determined without oral argument or by telephone 

conference call.”).

We do not consider arguments and allegations raised for the first time on 

appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

Erin Loftus’ motion to supplement the record on appeal (Docket Entry 

No. 27) is denied. 

AFFIRMED.