USCA1 Opinion

October 19, 1995

[NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

____________________

No. 95-1030

NATHANIEL L. CHAMPLIN, ET AL.,

Plaintiffs, Appellees,

v.

JOHN D. HALLISEY,

Defendant, Appellant.

____________________

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

[Hon. Joseph L. Tauro, U.S. District Judge]

___________________

____________________

Before

Torruella, Chief Judge,

___________
Selya and Stahl, Circuit Judges.
______________

____________________

John D. Hallisey on brief for appellant.

________________
Nathaniel L. Champlin and Mildred I. Champlin on brief pro se.
_____________________
___________________

____________________

____________________

Per Curiam.
__________

Attorney John

Hallisey appeals

from

the

district

contempt.

court's

dismissal

Hallisey claims

that

of his

his

motion

for

civil

former clients,

Champlins, should be held in contempt for not complying

the

with

a fee settlement that was approved and signed by the district

court in a case that has been closed.

Hallisey

characterizes the

fee settlement as a "refusal

judgment."

of

for

jurisdiction:

federal

settlement agreements

unless

the

to obey [the district

The term "judgment," however,

subject matter

basis

alleged breach

district

are not

court

court's]

begs the question

absent

jurisdiction,

of the

some

independent

dismissal-producing

enforceable in federal

has

ancillary jurisdiction by making

ensured

its

court

continuing

"the parties' obligation to

comply with the settlement agreement . . . part of

the order

of dismissal."

Am.,
___

See Kokkonen
___ ________

114 S. Ct.

from the

1673, 1677 (1994).

record presented to

preserved its

by

separate

We are

unable to tell

us whether the

district court

ancillary jurisdiction in this matter, "either

provision

jurisdiction'

over

incorporating the

order."

v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of

___________________________

(such

the

terms of

as

provision

settlement

`retaining

agreement)

the settlement agreement

or

by

in the

Id.
___

In any

easily resolved

event, because the

in favor

of the

merits of the

parties who would

case are

benefit

from an objection

jurisdictional

College,
_______

613

to jurisdiction, we

issue.

F.2d

district court had

See
___

1200,

motion).

carries

The

Manning
_______

v.

1202 (1st

the

Trustees of Tufts
__________________

Cir.

1980)

subject matter jurisdiction

motion for a preliminary

the

need not resolve

(assuming

to entertain

injunction; upholding the denial of

complainant in

the "heavy burden" of

contempt

proceeding

proving contempt by clear and

convincing

evidence.

Langton v.
_______

Johnston, 928
________

F.2d 1206,

1220-22 (1st Cir. 1991) (citing AMF, Inc. v. Jewett, 711 F.2d
_________
______

1096,

1100 (1st

contempt

928

The denial

of a

motion for

is reviewed only for abuse of discretion.

F.2d at

district

Cir. 1983)).

1220.

court's

See
___

also
____

refusal to

AMF, 711
___

find

F.2d

contempt

Langton,
_______

at 1100

("a

should not

be

overturned lightly").1

The

district

court

dismissed

the

motion

contempt because "[n]o factual basis" had been proffered.

think

fell

it meant

short of

that Hallisey's

clear

allegations, even

and convincing

evidence of

for

We

if true,

contempt.

There was no abuse of discretion in this determination.

Hallisey

argues that

the district

court deprived

him

of due process by dismissing the motion for contempt sua

___

sponte
______

while

his discovery

requests were

pending, without

____________________

1.

In the section of his brief setting forth our standard of

review,
novo,
____

Hallisey says
but

fails to

that

we review

follow up

this

questions of
truism with

the well-

settled standard of review in denial of contempt cases.

-3-

law de
__

giving

claims.

him an opportunity to plead the factual basis for his

We think that Hallisey had an adequate opportunity,

if not in his

motion for contempt, certainly in

his related

motion for summary judgment, to present the factual basis for

his

claims.

The district court did not abuse its discretion

by denying the motion for contempt.

Affirmed.
________

-4-