Jump To

Top Caption Trial Court Document

Support FLP

CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.

Please become a member today.

Join Free.law Now

March 2, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note

Lilian Pahola Calderon Jimenez and Luis Gordillo, et al. v. Kristi Noem, et al.

District Court, D. Massachusetts

• Citations: None known
• Docket Number: 1:18-cv-10225

• Precedential Status: Unknown Status

• Opinion

• Authorities (7)

• Cited By (0)

• Summaries (0)

• Similar Cases (8.4K)

• PDF

Trial Court Document

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

                          )                                      

LILIAN PAHOLA CALDERON JIMENEZ and )

LUIS GORDILLO, et al., )

individually and on behalf of all )

others similarly situated, )

) Civil Action

Plaintiffs-Petitioners, ) No. 18-cv-10225-PBS

)

v. )

)

KRISTI NOEM, et al., )

)

Defendants-Respondents. )

)

                     ORDER                                       

                 March 2, 2026                                   

Saris, J.

Class counsel has moved to enforce the class action settlement

agreement in this case with respect to the reporting provision in

Section V. The Court assumes familiarity with its January 23, 2026

opinion holding that “the settlement agreement implicitly forbids

ICE from removing a class member with a pending JMTR request before

ICE OPLA or a pending JMTR in immigration court or the BIA,”

regardless of where in the United States the class member is

arrested or detained. Dkt. 802 at 8.1

The current dispute centers on Section V of the settlement

agreement, which reads in relevant part as follows:

1 All capitalized terms and acronyms have the same meaning ascribed

to them in that opinion.

Defendants shall notify Class Counsel of any Enforcement

Action taken against a . . . Noncitizen Class Member,

and of any decision to remove a Noncitizen Class Member,

within five (5) business days after any such Enforcement

Action. . . . No less than five (5) business days before

the . . . Noncitizen Class Member will be removed . . . ,

Defendants shall provide Class Counsel with a brief

description of the consideration it completed under

Section III(A) of this Agreement.

Dkt. 654-1 ¶ V(A). Class counsel argues that this provision

requires Defendants to report to class counsel any arrest,

detention, or removal of a class member, regardless of the class

member’s location. Defendants respond that their obligations under

this provision do not extend to arrests, detentions, and removals

undertaken outside of Boston ERO’s jurisdiction.

Federal common law governs the adjudication of a motion to

enforce a settlement agreement in “a case like this one, arising

under federal law and brought in federal court.”2 Commonwealth

Sch., Inc. v. Commonwealth Acad. Holdings LLC, 994 F.3d 77, 85 (1st Cir. 2021). Under federal common law, “unless the parties

mutually intended and agreed to an alternative meaning,” courts

interpret a contract “in accordance with its express terms and the

plain meaning thereof.” Amyndas Pharms., S.A. v. Zealand Pharma

A/S, 48 F.4th 18, 31 (1st Cir. 2022) (first quoting Harris v. Dep’t

of Veterans Affs., 142 F.3d 1463, 1467 (Fed. Cir. 1998); and then

2 The settlement agreement in this case also contains a choice-of-

law provision selecting federal law. See Dkt. 654-1 ¶ IX(I).

quoting C. Sanchez & Son, Inc. v. United States, 6 F.3d 1539, 1543 (Fed. Cir. 1993)).

The plain language of the settlement agreement refutes class

counsel’s argument that Defendants must report arrests and

detentions of class members outside of Boston ERO’s jurisdiction.

The agreement provides that “Defendants shall notify Class Counsel

of any Enforcement Action taken against a . . . Noncitizen Class

Member . . . within five (5) business days after any such

Enforcement Action.” Dkt. 654-1 ¶ V(A). “Enforcement Action” is a

defined term that means:

1. Boston ERO’s arrest of a specific individual(s)

whose identity is known to Boston ERO prior to the

arrest, or Boston ERO’s initial decision to keep an

arrested individual in detention;

1. Boston ERO’s decision to continue the detention of
   
   an individual in ICE detention after (a) the Post
   
   Order Custody Review Process or (b) Boston ERO
   
   learns that the individual is a Class Member;

2. Boston ERO’s command that an individual depart the
   
   United States other than to attend an immigrant
   
   visa interview after the approval of a Form I-601A,
   
   Application for Provisional Unlawful Presence
   
   Waiver; or

3. the removal of an individual. Id. ¶ I(E) (emphasis added). With respect to actions other than
   
   removals, this definition limits the term “Enforcement Action” to
   
   actions taken by Boston ERO. Thus, Defendants’ duty under the
   
   settlement agreement to notify class counsel of arrests and
   
   detentions extends only to actions within Boston ERO’s
   
   jurisdiction.
   
   Class counsel argues that Section V’s use of the term

“Defendants” establishes that the reporting obligations in that

section are meant to encompass all class members regardless of

geographic location. Class counsel points out that the settlement

agreement’s definition of the term “Defendants” includes national-

level officers like the Director of ICE, the Secretary of the U.S.

Department of Homeland Security, and the President of the United

States. See id. ¶ I(P). But “Defendants” are simply the individuals

upon whom the agreement imposes reporting obligations. Section V’s

use of the term “Defendants” does not expand the geographic

limitations on those obligations imposed by that section’s clear

language.

That leaves Defendants’ reporting obligations with respect to

the removal of class members. These obligations appear in two

sentences in Section V. The first states that “Defendants shall

notify Class Counsel of any Enforcement Action taken against

a . . . Noncitizen Class Member, and of any decision to remove a

Noncitizen Class Member, within five (5) business days after any

such Enforcement Action.” Id. ¶ V(A). The second provides that

“[n]o less than five (5) business days before the . . . Noncitizen

Class Member will be removed . . . , Defendants shall provide

Class Counsel with a brief description of the consideration it

completed under Section III(A) of this Agreement.” Id. This second sentence requiring notice five business days

prior to removal only covers class members within Boston ERO’s

jurisdiction. That sentence mandates notification to class counsel

of “the consideration [Defendants] completed under Section

III(A).” Id. Section III(A), in turn, states that:

Boston ERO will take Enforcement Actions against . . .

Noncitizen Class Members only after both (a) considering

[his or her visa petition and eligibility for two

discretionary waivers of inadmissibility] and

(b) determining, in good faith and based on the facts in

the Noncitizen Class Member’s case, that the Noncitizen

Class Member poses a threat to public safety or threat

to national security. Id. ¶ III(A) (emphasis added). The agreement also specifies that

“Boston ERO will not remove a . . . Noncitizen Class Member from

the United States . . . unless a DFOD-level Officer has approved

the removal . . . after providing the consideration and making the

determination required by Section III(A).” Id. ¶ III(C) (emphasis

added). Given that Section III(A) refers specifically to steps

Boston ERO must take before removing a class member, the Court

cannot interpret this sentence in Section V to apply to the removal

of class members outside of Boston ERO’s jurisdiction.

That said, the other sentence in Section V establishing a

reporting requirement for removals -- under which “Defendants

shall notify Class Counsel of any Enforcement Action taken against

a . . . Noncitizen Class Member, and of any decision to remove a

Noncitizen Class Member, within five (5) business days after any

such Enforcement Action,” id. ¶ V(A) -- includes no geographic

limitation. While, as noted above, the settlement agreement

defines the term “Enforcement Action” to include arrests and

detentions by Boston ERO specifically, the term encompasses any

“removal of an individual” irrespective of location. Id. ¶ I(E)(4).

The plain meaning of this sentence, then, is that Defendants must

notify class counsel within five business days after deciding to

remove a class member and after actually removing a class member.

Defendants contend that the parties intended for the

settlement agreement to apply only in Boston ERO’s jurisdiction

and that a nationwide reporting obligation of this sort would be

impractical. The complexity of the arguments the parties have

raised with respect to the geographic scope of various provisions

in the agreement belies the notion that the agreement evinces a

clear intent to apply only within Boston ERO’s jurisdiction. And

Defendants’ resort to the parties’ subjective intent cannot

overcome the plain meaning of the agreement’s text. See Travelers

Indem. Co. v. Bailey, 557 U.S. 137, 150 (2009); N. New Eng. Tel.

Operations LLC v. Loc. 2327, Int’l Bhd. of Elec. Workers, 735 F.3d

15, 23 (1st Cir. 2013).

In interpreting the scope of Defendants’ reporting duty, the

Court construes the phrase “any decision to remove a Noncitizen

Class Member” to encompass ICE OPLA’s denial of a JMTR request.

Given that all class members by definition have final orders of

removal, the denial of a JMTR request is effectively a decision

that the class member should be removed. Accordingly, the

settlement agreement requires that Defendants notify class counsel

within five business days after ICE OPLA’s denial of a JMTR

request.

Following the Court’s hearing on class counsel’s motion, the

parties submitted dueling proposals for an order intended to

enforce Defendants’ reporting obligations under the settlement

agreement. Class counsel asks the Court to impose a lengthy set of

detailed duties on Defendants, including sending out periodic

notices to ERO field offices, requiring ICE officers across the

nation to screen all current and future detainees for Calderon

class membership, and mandating specific methods of notifying ICE

officials of Defendants’ obligations. Defendants protest that this

proposal greatly expands the agreement’s terms. Cognizant that it

cannot “re-write the [s]ettlement [a]greement under the guise of

contractual interpretation,” In re Deepwater Horizon, 858 F.3d

298, 304 (5th Cir. 2017); see 11 Williston on Contracts § 31:5

(4th ed. 2025) (“[T]he court . . . may not make a new contract for

the parties or rewrite their contract while purporting to interpret

or construe it.”), the Court agrees with Defendants.

For their part, Defendants propose sending out an email

broadcast to all ERO field offices nationwide that include the

following:

•

The definition of Calderon Class Members.

•

The obligation to stay the removal of any detained Class

Members with a properly filed JMTR request with ICE OPLA

or a pending JMTR with the immigration court or Board of

Immigration Appeals.

•

An instruction that ERO offices nationwide reach out to

their local OPLA offices for legal advice on their

obligations arising as a result of this Court’s order

regarding Class Members with pending JMTRs.

•

An instruction that if ERO is affirmatively informed by

the Class Member or their counsel of record of Calderon

Class Membership, the case should be immediately

reviewed under the Settlement Agreement.

Dkt. 810 at 3-4. Defendants also agree to continue to expeditiously

implement stays for class members with pending JMTR requests or

JMTRs who are identified to Defendants’ counsel. While this

proposal seems reasonable, the Court will not micromanage

Defendants’ internal procedures for implementing its obligations

under Section V as interpreted by this order.

For the foregoing reasons, the Court ALLOWS IN PART and DENIES

IN PART the motion to enforce (Dkt. 793) with respect to the

reporting provision. Defendants shall notify class counsel within

five business days after any decision to remove a class member,

including ICE OPLA’s denial of a JMTR request, and any removal of

a class member.

SO ORDERED.

/s/ PATTI B. SARIS__________

Hon. Patti B. Saris

United States District Judge