Opinion ID: 899528
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Settlement & Mootness

Text: We begin with some general observations regarding the effect of a prior settlement on a case pending on appeal. “Generally, when a party settles all of his personal claims before appeal, an appeals court must dismiss the appeal as 10 JONES V . MCDANIEL moot.” Smith v. T-Mobile USA Inc., 570 F.3d 1119, 1122 (9th Cir. 2009). That is because there is no “live case or controversy” where “the parties’ settlement agreement has resolved all facets of their dispute.” Gator.com Corp. v. L.L. Bean, Inc., 398 F.3d 1125, 1131–32 (9th Cir. 2005) (en banc). Thus, we have held, where a plaintiff “enter[s] into a settlement agreement in which she agree[s] to relinquish ‘any claims,’” against a defendant, a subsequent appeal of such a claim is moot. Sanford v. MemberWorks, Inc., 625 F.3d 550, 556–57 (9th Cir. 2010). The question in this case, then, is whether the parties’ Accord and Satisfaction “resolved all facets of their dispute,” including Jones’ First Amendment claims, thereby rendering this appeal moot. Gator.com Corp., 398 F.3d at 1132; see also 13B Charles Alan Wright, Arthur R. Miller & Edward H. Cooper, Federal Practice and Procedure § 3533.2, at 785 (3d ed. 2008) (noting that a settlement moots only the issues the parties intended to settle). According to Jones, the Accord and Satisfaction is limited to the judgment entered on his due process claim, and “has nothing to do with the First Amendment claim[s].” Defendants disagree, urging that the parties intended “to settle the entire litigation” at the June 29, 2010 Status Conference. As a general matter, “‘[t]he construction and enforcement of settlement agreements are governed by principles of local law.’” O’Neil v. Bunge Corp., 365 F.3d 820, 822 (9th Cir. 2004) (quoting United Commercial Ins. Serv., Inc. v. Paymaster Corp., 962 F.2d 853, 856 (9th Cir. 1992)). That is true “even where a federal cause of action is settled or released.” Botefur v. City of Eagle Point, 7 F.3d 152, 156 (9th Cir. 1993) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). JONES V . MCDANIEL 11 Under Nevada law, “a settlement agreement[’s] construction and enforcement are governed by principles of contract law.” May v. Anderson, 119 P.3d 1254, 1257 (Nev. 2005). The “ultimate goal is to effectuate the contracting parties’ intent.” In re Amerco Derivative Litig., 252 P.3d 681, 693 (Nev. 2011). Although any analysis of a settlement’s terms starts with the language of the agreement, “when that intent is not clearly expressed in the contractual language, [courts] may also consider the circumstances surrounding the agreement.” Id.