Agrawal v. Univ.of Okla. Board of Regents

Filing 920090610


Download PDF
U n i t e d States Court of Appeals T e n t h Circuit FILED J u n e 10, 2009 U N I T E D STATES COURT OF APPEALSl i s a b e t h A. Shumaker E F O R THE TENTH CIRCUIT C l e r k of Court N E W T O N AGRAWAL, Ph.D., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. T H E BOARD OF REGENTS OF THE U N I V E R S I T Y OF OKLAHOMA, d / b / a University of Oklahoma Health S c i e n c e s Center at Oklahoma City, Defendant-Appellee. N o . 08-6110 ( D . C . No. 5:07-CV-00728-F) ( W . D . Okla.) O R D E R AND JUDGMENT * B e f o r e KELLY, McKAY, and BRISCOE, Circuit Judges. P l a i n t i f f - A p p e l l a n t , Newton Agrawal, Ph.D., appeals from the district c o u r t ' s April 10, 2008, sealed minute entry enforcing a settlement agreement b e t w e e n himself and Defendant-Appellee, the University of Oklahoma Board of R e g e n t s (the University). The parties are familiar with the facts and the A f t e r examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined u n a n i mo u s l y to grant the parties' request for a decision on the briefs without oral a r g u me n t . See Fed. R. App. P. 34(f); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore o r d e r e d submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding p r e c e d e n t , except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and c o l l a t e r a l estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent w i t h Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1. * p r o c e d u r a l history of this case and we need not restate either in detail here. Suffice it to say that Mr. Agrawal sued the University in 2005, challenging his a c a d e mi c dismissal from the University's Health Sciences Center medical school. The parties entered settlement negotiations in 2007, and in early 2008, they e x e c u t e d the aforementioned settlement agreement. On April 10, 2008, the d i s t r i c t court conducted a motion hearing and ruled from the bench. Specifically, t h e court (1) held the settlement agreement final and binding on all parties, ( 2 ) denied Mr. Agrawal's "Application for Substitution of Counsel to Complete S e t t l e me n t Agreement and/or to File the Amended Petition" (because it p r e s u p p o s e d a binding settlement agreement was not in place), and (3) dismissed t h e case with prejudice. The court's decision was memorialized in the A p r i l 10, 2008, sealed minute entry. This appeal followed. We begin by addressing our appellate jurisdiction. The University c o n t e n d s this court lacks jurisdiction because Mr. Agrawal's notice of appeal f a i l e d to "designate the judgment, order, or part thereof being appealed," F e d . R. App. P. 3(c)(1)(B), and a "functional equivalent," Smith v. Barry, 5 0 2 U.S. 244, 248 (1992) (quotation omitted), was not filed within the thirty-day d e a d l i n e prescribed by Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A). But where, as here, a district c o u r t fails to set out judgment in a separate document, the usual thirty-day d e a d l i n e is inapplicable. See Mondragón v. Thompson, 519 F.3d 1078, 1082 ( 1 0 t h Cir. 2008) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 58 (c)(2)(B)). Instead of thirty days, -2- M r . Agrawal had 180 days from April 10 to file a timely notice of appeal, In re T a u m o e p e a u , 523 F.3d 1213, 1216 (10th Cir. 2008), or a "functional equivalent," S m i t h , 502 U.S. at 248-49, and he did so. His July 31 "Memorandum Brief," sets f o r t h the decision being appealed and it was filed well within the applicable 180-day period. Accordingly, Mr. Agrawal's appeal is timely and we have j u r i s d i c t i o n to consider its merits. 1 " ` A trial court has the power to summarily enforce a settlement agreement e n t e r e d into by the litigants while the litigation is pending before it.'" Shoels v. K l e b o l d , 375 F.3d 1054, 1060 (10th Cir. 2004) (quoting United States v. Hardage, 9 8 2 F.2d 1491, 1496 (10th Cir. 1993)). We review the "decision to enforce such a n agreement for an abuse of discretion." Shoels, 375 F.3d at 1060. "An abuse of d i s c r e t i o n occurs when the district court based its decision on an erroneous c o n c l u s i o n of law or where there is no rational basis in the evidence for the r u l i n g . " Id. (quotation omitted). E v e n though the district court did not enter judgment dismissing this action a s settled, see, e.g., Heuser v. Kephart, 215 F.3d 1186, 1189 (10th Cir. 2000), its mi n u t e entry resolved all matters as to all parties and left "nothing for the court to d o but execute the judgment," Graham v. Hartford Life & Accident Ins. Co., 5 0 1 F.3d 1153, 1156 (10th Cir. 2007), cert. denied, 128 S. Ct. 1650 (2008). As such, the minute entry is a final appealable order under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. See id. at 1157 (When considering whether a decision is final, our analysis is g o v e r n e d by "the substance of the district court's decision, not its label or form." ( q u o t a t i o n omitted)). -3- 1 " I s s u e s involving the formation and construction of a purported settlement a g r e e me n t are resolved by applying state contract law." Id. "[A]bsent fraud, d u r e s s , undue influence, or mistake," neither party is permitted to repudiate a s e t t l e me n t agreement. Whitehorse v. Johnson, 156 P.3d 41, 46 (Okla. 2007). H a v i n g reviewed the briefs, the appendices, and applicable law in light of t h e above-mentioned standards, we hold that Mr. Agrawal has not identified any r e v e r s i b l e error in this case. Simply stated, the district court did not abuse its d i s c r e t i o n in enforcing the parties' settlement agreement because there is a " r a t i o n a l basis in the evidence" supporting its decision. Shoels, 375 F.3d at 1060. We therefore AFFIRM the district court's April 10, 2008, decision for s u b s t a n t i a l l y the same reasons as stated in its ruling from the bench and in its s e a l e d minute entry memorializing that ruling. Further, we GRANT the parties' motions to seal their respective briefs and t h e University's motion to seal its supplemental appendix. All other outstanding mo t i o n s are DENIED as moot. E n t e r e d for the Court P a u l J. Kelly, Jr. C i r c u i t Judge -4-

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?