The following excerpt is from Arata v. Nu Skin Intern., Inc., 96 F.3d 1265 (9th Cir. 1996):
McDermott contends that, under the terms of the Settlement Agreement, the district court had an obligation to exercise jurisdiction over her motion, and that it therefore erred in divesting itself of jurisdiction. 1 Whether a district court has jurisdiction to enforce a settlement agreement is a question of law subject to de novo review. Hagestad v. Tragesser, 49 F.3d 1430, 1432-33 (9th Cir.1995). Here, however, the question is slightly different; it is whether the district court had the authority to terminate its continuing jurisdiction, the initial retention of which was a discretionary act. It is arguable, therefore, that the court's action is subject to abuse of discretion review. However, we need not decide which standard applies, because we hold that the court's action withstands scrutiny under either standard.
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.