Calderon Jimenez v. Cronen et al

1
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.
Case 1:18-cv-10225-PBS Document 812 Filed 03/02/26 Page 1 of 9

2
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).
Case 1:18-cv-10225-PBS Document 812 Filed 03/02/26 Page 2 of 9

3
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;
2. 	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;
3. 	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
4. 	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
Case 1:18-cv-10225-PBS Document 812 Filed 03/02/26 Page 3 of 9

4
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
Case 1:18-cv-10225-PBS Document 812 Filed 03/02/26 Page 4 of 9

5
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
Case 1:18-cv-10225-PBS Document 812 Filed 03/02/26 Page 5 of 9

6
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
Case 1:18-cv-10225-PBS Document 812 Filed 03/02/26 Page 6 of 9

7
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.
Case 1:18-cv-10225-PBS Document 812 Filed 03/02/26 Page 7 of 9

8
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.
Case 1:18-cv-10225-PBS Document 812 Filed 03/02/26 Page 8 of 9

9
SO ORDERED.
/s/ PATTI B. SARIS__________
Hon. Patti B. Saris
United States District Judge
Case 1:18-cv-10225-PBS Document 812 Filed 03/02/26 Page 9 of 9