Opinion ID: 778366
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Other Medical Care Provisions

Text: 99 The district court declined even to consider whether Defendants were in contempt for failing to comply substantially with the other medical care provisions of the Judgment. The court reasoned that the motion for contempt was untimely because Plaintiffs failed to give adequate notice [of] their intent to seek an extension of jurisdiction over anything other than dental and mental health care; those terms of the Stipulation and Judgment expired January 12, 1999. 100 The problem with that reasoning is that the court already had issued two orders deferring the automatic expiration of the Stipulation and Judgment until the court can enter findings regarding whether an extension of jurisdiction is warranted. Because the orders deferring expiration of the Judgment were worded broadly and did not distinguish between the mental health and dental provisions, on the one hand, and other health services provisions, on the other, the entire Judgment remained in force when Plaintiffs filed their first motion for contempt. That is so even though (as we have held above) the court eventually concluded that Plaintiffs had not sought to extend the Judgment in a timely manner as to the other health services provisions. The temporary extension of the Judgment was in aid of the court's jurisdiction to decide its jurisdiction. That is, the district court had power to extend the Judgment for the purpose of preserving existing conditions pending a decision upon its own jurisdiction. United States v. United Mine Workers of Am., 330 U.S. 258, 290, 67 S.Ct. 677, 91 L.Ed. 884 (1947); see also Matsuk v. INS, 247 F.3d 999, 1000-01 (9th Cir.2001) (We have jurisdiction `to determine whether jurisdiction exists.') (quoting Flores-Miramontes v. INS, 212 F.3d 1133, 1135 (9th Cir.2000)). 101 Defendants argue that the word provisional in the orders extending the life of the Judgment meant that the extension affected only those portions of the Judgment concerning mental health and dental care. We are not persuaded. The term provisional generally means temporary. Black's Law Dictionary 1224 (6th ed. 1990) (Temporary; preliminary; tentative; taken or done by way of precaution or ad interim. ); Oxford English Dictionary 719 (2d ed. 1989) (Of, belonging to, or of the nature of a temporary provision or arrangement; provided or adopted for present needs or for the time being; supplying the place of something regular, permanent, or final....). Because the orders did not otherwise limit the substantive reach of the extension of the Judgment, we decline to adopt Defendants' idiosyncratic interpretation of the term provisional. 102 To the extent that the Judgment required notice before the filing of a motion for contempt alleging a past breach of the substantive terms of the Judgment—as distinct from the notice required to extend the court's continuing jurisdiction into the future—Plaintiffs complied with it. 9 Accordingly, the district court's refusal even to consider the merits of Plaintiffs' motion was an abuse of discretion. We reverse this aspect of the decision and remand the case to the district court for further proceedings. 103