Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_02-cv-01686/USCOURTS-azd-2_02-cv-01686-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

CAROL ANN AGSTER, personal

representative of the Estate of CHARLES

J. AGSTER, III, deceased; CHARLES J.

AGSTER, JR., and CAROL ANN

AGSTER, surviving parents of CHARLES

J. AGSTER, III,

Plaintiffs, 

vs.

Betty Lewis, et al.,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CV 02-1686-PHX-JAT

ORDER

Pending before the Court is Nurse Betty Lewis' Motion for Remittitur (Doc. #660).

Nurse Lewis seeks a reduction in the punitive damages award against her from $2,000,000

to $540,000. Plaintiffs respond and argue that the Court cannot grant Nurse Lewis the relief

she seeks because it would not affect the amount Plaintiffs will receive. Plaintiffs go on to

state that Plaintiffs and Nurse Lewis have entered into a settlement agreement, Plaintiffs have

been paid, and no order from the Court will change this result. Therefore, Plaintiffs conclude

that any order the Court would issue would constitute an advisory opinion.

Nurse Lewis replies and does not contest these facts. However, she maintains that she

has a due process right to have the punitive damages award against her considered and

reduced. Specifically, she argues that she will have consequences from the Court's order,

including her future ability to obtain employment and her future ability to obtain malpractice

insurance. Nurse Lewis does not dispute, however, Plaintiffs' argument that any order of this

Case 2:02-cv-01686-JAT Document 806 Filed 11/22/06 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

 And, even to the extent a right to challenge an award was preserved in the settlement

agreement, it would still have had to present an actual case or controversy before this Court.

- 2 -

Court will not affect the outcome of the litigation between Plaintiffs and Nurse Lewis. See

Nurse Lewis' Reply (Doc. #727), footnote 1 and footnote 3.

Based on this state of the record, the Court agrees with Plaintiffs that any order this

Court would issue on the merits of whether the punitive damages assessed against Nurse

Lewis violated her due process rights would be an advisory opinion. As Plaintiffs note, the

Court of Appeals has held, "[w]here parties enter into a settlement that resolves all

outstanding disputes, we are unable to grant effective relief and the case becomes moot."

DHX, Inc. v. Allianz AGF MAT, Ltd., 425 F.3d 1169, 1174 (9th Cir. 2005) (J. Beezer

concurring).

The Court finds any disputes between Nurse Lewis and Plaintiffs to be moot as a

result of their settlement agreement. To the extent Nurse Lewis had further individual

interests in the case beyond those addressed by the settlement agreement, her rights to pursue

those interests would have had to have been preserved in the settlement agreement and they

were not.1

Finally, the Court is unpersuaded by Nurse Lewis' argument that the settlement

agreement is "illegal and void" on public policy grounds if the agreement precludes her from

asserting a due process challenge to the jury's punitive damages award. Any time parties

settle a case before trial, they wave a constitutional right to trial by jury; this fact does not

make all settlement agreements void on public policy grounds. In other words, the fact that

a settlement agreement settles away rights a party would otherwise have, even constitutional

rights, does not make the agreement void for public policy reasons. Moreover, Nurse Lewis

is not trying to void the agreement, which would be the remedy if the agreement violated

public policy; instead she is trying to challenge the collateral consequences of the agreement.

Thus, in addition to finding the settlement agreement is enforceable, the Court finds the

remedy Nurse Lewis seeks to be inappropriate even if the agreement was void.

Case 2:02-cv-01686-JAT Document 806 Filed 11/22/06 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 3 -

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that Nurse Lewis' Motion for Remittitur (Doc. #660) is denied.

DATED this 22nd day of November, 2006.

Case 2:02-cv-01686-JAT Document 806 Filed 11/22/06 Page 3 of 3