From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Harrop v. Western Airlines, Inc.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Jan 31, 1977
550 F.2d 1143 (9th Cir. 1977)

Summary

holding that it was not an abuse of discretion for a court to enforce a settlement agreement after the parties entered the material terms of the agreement on the record

Summary of this case from Metke v. Bank of N.Y. Mellon

Opinion

No. 76-2115.

January 31, 1977.

Estelle L. LeVine of Cole Levine, Santa Monica, Cal., for plaintiffs-appellants.

Donald K. Hall of Darling, Hall, Rae Gute, Los Angeles, Cal., for defendant-appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California.

Before HUFSTEDLER, SNEED and KENNEDY, Circuit Judges.


OPINION


Edith Harrop and Alice Lewis brought an action against Western Airlines under the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. (1970 Supp. V 1975). After numerous continuances, the attorneys for the parties informed the district court that the case had been settled and that the only remaining task was to draft settlement papers. The trial court advised counsel that it would enter an order dismissing the action, with the condition that the order could be vacated within sixty days if the terms of the settlement could not be effected. The order dismissing the action with prejudice was entered the following day.

By reason of an apparent clerical inadvertence, the order as entered provided that the dismissal could be vacated within thirty days if settlement was not effected.

The plaintiffs, however, apparently declined to execute the formal settlement documents presented by their attorney. Three months after entry of the order of dismissal, the plaintiffs moved to substitute attorneys. The court denied the motion on the ground that the action had earlier been dismissed. Thereafter, exactly one year after the order of dismissal had been entered, the plaintiffs filed a motion under Fed.R. Civ.P. 60(b) seeking to set aside the order on the ground that the plaintiffs had not agreed to the settlement and had not authorized their attorney to settle the case or move to dismiss the action. The trial court denied the motion, and the plaintiffs appeal.

If the record had shown that the plaintiffs had agreed to the settlement, or that the attorneys had authority to settle the suit and dismiss the action, the district court would then have acted well within its discretion in denying the motion. The trial court, however, proceeded on the express assumption that if the attorney for the defendants had been advised by opposing counsel that the settlement was satisfactory to the plaintiffs, then the settlement was binding and dismissal of the action was proper.

A settlement agreement may be binding, in some circumstances, even if it is an oral one. Nevertheless, at least under California law, which is arguably applicable here, an attorney has no authority, either actual or implied, to settle an action without the express permission of his client. Navrides v. Zurich Ins. Co., 5 Cal.3d 698, 97 Cal.Rptr. 309, 488 P.2d 637 (1971); Linsk v. Linsk, 70 Cal.2d 272, 74 Cal.Rptr. 544, 449 P.2d 760 (1969); see ABA Code of Professional Responsibility, Canon 7, Ethical Consideration 7-7. There is no finding in the record before us that the plaintiffs authorized their attorney to settle their case or to consent to a dismissal of the action.

We therefore remand the cause to the district court for further factual inquiry on these questions. In view of the date on which the motion to vacate was filed and the express advice by the trial court to the parties that it would set a sixty-day period in which the action might be reopened, it would also be proper for the district court, in its discretion, to consider whether the motion to reopen was "made within a reasonable time." Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b).

REMANDED.


Summaries of

Harrop v. Western Airlines, Inc.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Jan 31, 1977
550 F.2d 1143 (9th Cir. 1977)

holding that it was not an abuse of discretion for a court to enforce a settlement agreement after the parties entered the material terms of the agreement on the record

Summary of this case from Metke v. Bank of N.Y. Mellon

applying California law

Summary of this case from Brooks v. Tarsadia Hotels

applying California law

Summary of this case from Roat v. Cal. Exposition & State Fair

remanding for further proceedings under Rule 60(b) to determine whether an attorney had authority to enter a settlement agreement

Summary of this case from VACC, Inc. v. Davis

remanding for further proceedings under Rule 60(b) to determine whether an attorney had authority to enter a settlement agreement

Summary of this case from VACC, Inc. v. Davis

applying California law

Summary of this case from Heilman v. Silva

applying California law

Summary of this case from Dicey v. Rayner

enforcing an oral settlement agreement

Summary of this case from Hess v. Hanneman

applying California law

Summary of this case from Dicey v. Cobb

applying California law

Summary of this case from Pierce v. Alameida

applying California law

Summary of this case from Woods v. Carey

applying California law

Summary of this case from Howard v. Clark

applying California law

Summary of this case from Howard v. Deazevedo

applying California law

Summary of this case from Holt v. Macarthur

noting California law requirement that a case cannot be settled without express authority from a client

Summary of this case from Hanna v. Mariposa County Sheriff's Department

interpreting California law, which requires express authorization

Summary of this case from Thompson v. Continental Emsco Co.
Case details for

Harrop v. Western Airlines, Inc.

Case Details

Full title:EDITH HARROP AND ALICE LEWIS, PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS, v. WESTERN AIRLINES…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Date published: Jan 31, 1977

Citations

550 F.2d 1143 (9th Cir. 1977)

Citing Cases

Piatelli Co. v. Chambers

Second, the settlement agreement must be the result of an agreement of the parties or their authorized…

Spitzer v. Aljoe

Second, both parties must have agreed to the terms of the settlement or authorized their respective counsel…