Neway Mengistu v. Hacla
This text of Neway Mengistu v. Hacla (Neway Mengistu v. Hacla) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 20 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
NEWAY MENGISTU, an individual, No. 23-55382
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:15-cv-05427-MWF-PJW
v. MEMORANDUM* HOUSING AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES, a State of California entity; and others to be joined under Rule 19 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Michael W. Fitzgerald, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 18, 2026**
Before: CALLAHAN, FRIEDLAND, and BRESS, Circuit Judges.
Neway Mengistu appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying his
motion to enforce a settlement agreement in his housing and disability
discrimination action. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). an abuse of discretion. Doi v. Halekulani Corp., 276 F.3d 1131, 1136 (9th
Cir. 2002). We affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying the motion to
enforce the settlement agreement because Mengistu failed to show that defendant
Housing Authority of the City of Los Angeles breached any provision 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.”); Oasis W.
Realty, LLC v. Goldman, 250 P.3d 1115, 1121 (Cal. 2011) (elements of a breach of
contract claim).
The motion (Docket Entry No. 32) for judicial notice is granted.
All other pending motions are denied.
AFFIRMED.
2 23-55382
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Neway Mengistu v. Hacla, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/neway-mengistu-v-hacla-ca9-2026.