Breslaw v. State of Nevada

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS SEP 23 2025 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT LISA DANIELLE BRESLAW, Nos. 24-1301 25-567 Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:23-cv-01680-APG-MDC v. MEMORANDUM* STATE OF NEVADA, ex rel. Board of Regents of the Nevada System of Higher Education, on behalf of College of Southern Nevada, Defendant - Appellee. Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada Andrew P. Gordon, District Judge, Presiding Submitted September 17, 2025** Before: SILVERMAN, OWENS, and BRESS, Circuit Judges. In these companion appeals, Lisa Danielle Breslaw appeals pro se from the district court’s orders granting defendant’s motion to enforce a settlement * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes these cases are suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). agreement and denying reconsideration of an order denying post-judgment relief in her employment discrimination action. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion. Doi v. Halekulani Corp., 276 F.3d 1131, 1136 (9th Cir. 2002) (enforcement of a settlement agreement); Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah County, Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262 (9th Cir. 1993) (denial of a motion for reconsideration). We affirm. In Appeal No. 24-1301, the district court did not abuse its discretion in enforcing the settlement agreement because Breslaw does not contend that she lacked the ability to understand the terms of the agreement. See Jeff D. v. Andrus, 899 F.2d 753, 759 (9th Cir. 1989) (“The construction and enforcement of settlement agreements are governed by principles of local law which apply to interpretation of contracts generally.”); Gen. Motors v. Jackson, 900 P.2d 345, 349 (Nev. 1995) (“[T]he capacity to contract involves a person’s inability to understand the terms of an agreement . . . .”). In Appeal No. 25-567, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Breslaw’s motion for reconsideration because Breslaw did not identify evidence warranting reconsideration or an evidentiary hearing. See Sch. Dist. No. 1J, 5 F.3d at 1263 (setting forth grounds for reconsideration under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 59 and 60); see also Feature Realty, Inc. v. City of Spokane, 331 F.3d 1082, 1093 (9th Cir. 2003) (“[T]he newly discovered evidence must be of 2 24-1301, 25-567 ‘such magnitude that production of it earlier would have been likely to change the disposition of the case.’” (citation omitted)). We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009). Breslaw’s motion to supplement the record (Docket Entry No. 25) is denied as unnecessary because the referenced material is already part of the record on appeal. Breslaw’s motion to consolidate (Docket Entry No. 30) is denied. AFFIRMED. 3 24-1301, 25-567