Alan Honarmand v. J.C. Penney



Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT ___________ No. 11-1614 ___________ Alan Honarmand, Appellant, v. J. C. Penney, Appellee. * * * * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the Eastern * District of Arkansas. * * [UNPUBLISHED] * ___________ Submitted: October 21, 2011 Filed: October 26, 2011 ___________ Before MURPHY, ARNOLD, and BENTON, Circuit Judges. ___________ PER CURIAM. Alan Honarmand appeals the district court’s1 orders dismissing his employment-discrimination action as settled, and denying his motion to reconsider based on his claim that his attorney settled the case without authority. Following careful review, we conclude the district court’s finding that Honarmand’s attorney had authority to settle the case was not clearly erroneous. See Mueller v. Guardian Life Ins. Co., 143 F.3d 414, 415-16 (8th Cir. 1998) (holding that court’s factual findings were not clearly erroneous in light of credibility determinations to which appellate 1 The Honorable James M. Moody, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas. Appellate Case: 11-1614 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/26/2011 Entry ID: 3843134 court deferred, evidence in record supporting court’s findings, and reasonable inferences drawn by court from evidence); see also Harris v. Ark. State Highway & Transp. Dep’t, 437 F.3d 749, 750-51 (8th Cir. 2006) (party who denies that attorney was authorized to enter into settlement bears “heavy burden” to prove that authorization was not given; express authority can be created by, inter alia, written words of principal which cause agent to believe that principal desires him to act in particular manner). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. ______________________________ -2- Appellate Case: 11-1614 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/26/2011 Entry ID: 3843134

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?