Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caDC-99-07011/USCOURTS-caDC-99-07011-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 320
Nature of Suit: Assault, Libel, and Slander
Cause of Action: 

---

<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

Argued October 18, 1999 Decided December 28, 1999

No. 99-7010

Eric A. Foretich,

Appellant

v.

American Broadcasting Companies, Inc., et al.

Appellees

---------

Consolidated with

99-7011, 99-7012, 99-7013

Appeals from the United States District

Court for the District of Columbia

(No. 93cv02620)

(No. 94cv00037)

---------

Elaine J. Mittleman argued the cause for the appellant.

Paul R. Taskier argued the cause for the appellees. Adam

Proujansky was on brief for the appellees.

Before: Sentelle, Henderson and Garland, Circuit

Judges.

USCA Case #99-7011 Document #486341 Filed: 12/28/1999 Page 1 of 9
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

Opinion for the court filed by Circuit Judge Henderson.

Karen LeCraft Henderson, Circuit Judge: Eric A. Foretich, D.D.S., M.A., (Foretich) appeals the district court's order

denying his motion for extension of time to file a notice of

appeal. He also challenges that court's assertion of jurisdiction over, and resolution of, a subsequent motion of the

appellees (collectively "ABC")1 requesting enforcement of a

settlement agreement. Foretich seeks reversal of the order

denying his motion for extension of time to file a notice of

appeal and requests that this court vacate the district court's

order enforcing the settlement for lack of jurisdiction or, in

the alternative, reverse the order. We conclude that the

court below had jurisdiction to entertain the motion to enforce the settlement agreement, which the court properly

granted. The terms of the settlement agreement render

moot Foretich's challenge to the order denying him an extension of time to file a notice of appeal. Accordingly, we affirm

the district court in all respects.

I.

In December 1993 Foretich brought a defamation action

against ABC for the broadcast of a television movie that

depicted events surrounding Foretich's court battles with his

former wife regarding the custody of their daughter. Following innumerable discovery disputes, the district court granted

ABC's motion for summary judgment on all counts in an

order entered on October 22, 1997. Foretich did not file a

timely notice of appeal. ABC, however, filed a motion seeking to recover attorney's fees and certain expenses on October 31 and submitted a supplemental bill of costs on November 4.

Also on October 31, settlement negotiations began anew at

the behest of Foretich's lawyer. Eventually, by letter dated

November 17, Foretich's counsel communicated the following:

__________

1 The appellees include American Broadcasting Companies,

Inc., Capital Cities/ABC, Inc. and ABC Holding Company.

USCA Case #99-7011 Document #486341 Filed: 12/28/1999 Page 2 of 9
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

This is to confirm our telephone conversation this afternoon that Dr. Foretich accepts the "walk away" offer

made to him in your letter of November 12, 1997, which

offer you agreed to keep open today.... In reliance on

your acceptance [sic] of the offer, we have not filed today

on behalf of Dr. Foretich a Notice of Appeal.

Joint Appendix (JA) 367. The "walk away" offer reflected in

the November 12 letter demanded, inter alia, that Foretich

forego an appeal and "execute a full, general release, from the

beginning of time to the end of time, for any person or entity

involved in any way with the ... broadcast ... of the

docudrama, including a covenant not to sue." JA 359-60. In

return, ABC agreed to abandon its effort to recover costs.

Counsel for ABC sent a document entitled "Agreement and

General Release" to counsel for Foretich on November 21.

During the following weeks, counsel engaged in several telephone conversations and neither voiced objection to the settlement document as an accurate reflection of the parties'

understanding. On December 16, however, counsel for Foretich communicated his client's refusal to sign because Foretich objected to executing a release encompassing future

broadcasts of the docudrama. In the end, Foretich disputes

the district court's finding that correspondence between counsel led to a meeting of the minds. See JA 469. The next day,

Foretich filed a motion for extension of time to file a notice of

appeal. The 30-day period had expired weeks earlier on

November 21. The district court denied the motion in an

order entered on January 16, 1998. Foretich filed a notice of

appeal of that order on February 11, 1998.

ABC's motion for fees and costs remained pending on

December 24, 1997 when ABC filed a motion seeking enforcement of the settlement agreement, imposition of sanctions

and expedited consideration. Applying principles of contract

law, the district court found the parties had entered into a

binding settlement agreement that, with minor exception, the

Agreement and General Release embodied.2 Thus, in its

__________

2 The district court found overbroad the provision releasing

ABC from liability for all actions "relating to any aspect of the

USCA Case #99-7011 Document #486341 Filed: 12/28/1999 Page 3 of 9
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

order of July 30, 1998,3 the court granted in relevant part

ABC's motion to enforce the settlement agreement, which

included a general release as to future broadcasts. The court

also denied ABC's motion for sanctions and, pursuant to the

settlement agreement, deemed the motion for costs and fees

withdrawn. Additionally, in an order entered January 6,

1999, the court denied Foretich's motion to alter or amend

the judgment granting ABC's motion to enforce. On January

22, 1999 Foretich filed a notice of appeal addressed to the

order entered on January 6.

II.

This court reviews jurisdictional issues de novo. See Board

of Trustees of Hotel & Restaurant Employees Local 25 v.

Madison Hotel, Inc., 97 F.3d 1479, 1483 (D.C. Cir. 1996).

With regard to the district court's order enforcing the settlement, we review factual findings for clear error and legal

issues de novo. See generally Serono Lab. v. Shalala, 158

F.3d 1313, 1317-18 (D.C. Cir. 1998).

A.

Before reaching the merits of the district court's order

partially granting ABC's motion to enforce the settlement, we

must decide whether the district court had jurisdiction to

__________

Morgan-Foretich controversy and/or its portrayal in the Docudrama (including anything referenced in the litigation.)." JA 467. It

concluded that the provision "expands the release into territory not

discussed in the letters," id., and that Foretich had not agreed to

that particular provision. See id.

3 Multiple motions to extend time to file a notice of appeal and

a motion to strike one of those motions occupied the district court

during the seven-month interim between ABC's filing its motion to

enforce and the court's disposition.

USCA Case #99-7011 Document #486341 Filed: 12/28/1999 Page 4 of 9
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

consider it.4 As Foretich points out, the district court granted summary judgment to ABC in an order entered on October 22, 1997, more than two months before ABC filed the

motion at issue. Still pending before the district court when

the subject motion was filed, however, was ABC's motion for

attorney's fees and costs. ABC contends the district court

necessarily had ancillary jurisdiction because resolution of the

motion to enforce the settlement agreement was necessary to

determine whether the pending motion for fees and costs

should be deemed withdrawn.

No jurisdictional foundation inheres in a motion to enforce

a settlement agreement that led to an earlier dismissal of the

underlying action. See Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co.,

511 U.S. 375, 381 (1994). The Supreme Court nonetheless

acknowledged in Kokkonen that if the motion is connected to

the dismissed action, the exercise of ancillary jurisdiction over

that motion may be proper. The Court mentioned a dismissal order that expressly incorporates the settlement agreement as such a jurisdictional "hook." See id. Addressing

ancillary jurisdiction more broadly, the Court stated that the

doctrine "recognizes federal courts' jurisdiction over some

matters (otherwise beyond their competence) that are incidental to other matters properly before them." Id. at 378.

The Court found that a district court may exercise ancillary

jurisdiction either "to permit disposition by a single court of

__________

4 ABC challenges our jurisdiction over Foretich's appeal of the

July 30, 1998 order, asserting that Foretich did not designate the

order in his notice of appeal and that his subsequent filings do not

manifest an intent to appeal the order. Considering that Foretich

unquestionably seeks review of the issues that order fully addressed

and that he listed the order on his Docketing Statement as an

appealed order, JA 591, we conclude that he satisfies the standard

enunciated in Brookens v. White, 795 F.2d 178, 180-81 (D.C. Cir.

1986), where this court recognized the well-settled rule that a

mistake in designating the specific judgment or order appealed

from should not result in loss of the appeal as long as the intent to

appeal from a specific judgment can be fairly inferred from the

appellant's notice (and subsequent filings) and the opposing party is

not misled by the mistake.

USCA Case #99-7011 Document #486341 Filed: 12/28/1999 Page 5 of 9
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

claims that are, in varying respects and degrees, factually

interdependent" or "to enable a court to function successfully,

that is, to manage its proceedings, vindicate its authority, and

effectuate its decrees." Id. at 379.

Here, the district court could not incorporate the settlement agreement into its dismissal order because the agreement was negotiated after the order had been entered. Nevertheless, properly pending before the court when ABC's

motion to enforce was filed was its motion for fees and costs.

See Lancaster v. Independent Sch. Dist. No. 5, 149 F.3d 1228,

1237 (10th Cir. 1998) ("Attorney's fees awards are collateral

matters over which the district court retains jurisdiction.")

(citing Garcia v. Burlington Northern R.R. Co., 818 F.2d 713,

721 (10th Cir. 1987)). If enforced, the settlement agreement

would require withdrawal of ABC's motion for fees and costs.

See, e.g., JA 286. The motion to enforce, therefore, could

moot the motion for fees and costs and, concordantly, any

judgment on that motion. The motions were thus interrelated and resolution of the motion to enforce allowed the

court to resolve the motion for fees and costs in a manner

that "effectuate[d] its decree[ ]." Kokkonen, 511 U.S. at 379.

Accordingly, we conclude the district court had jurisdiction

over the motion to enforce the settlement agreement.5

B.

On the merits, Foretich argues that the district court erred

in its disposition of the motion to enforce the settlement

agreement, that is, in finding an agreement existed. At oral

argument and in his submissions thereafter, Foretich disputed neither that his counsel had authority to enter into an

agreement nor that both parties thought an agreement had,

via counsel's correspondence, been reached. See Decl. of

Richard E. Jordan, Esq., October 20, 1999, p p 9, 12, 13.

Foretich does dispute that the parties in fact reached a

meeting of the minds on certain material terms. He contends

__________

5 We note that the order at issue simply declares that a valid

settlement agreement existed. Our affirmance is likewise limited

and we do not reach the closer issue of whether enforcing the

settlement agreement with affirmative relief such as a mandatory

injunction would have been within the district court's jurisdiction.

that their different understandings came to light when he

read the Agreement and General Release ABC drafted after

the parties agreed to the "walk away" offer. See id. p 14; see

also JA 413, p 4. Specifically, Foretich asserts that he never

agreed to a release permitting future broadcasts of the

docudrama.6

The November 17 letter from Foretich's counsel established Foretich's acceptance of the offer made in the November 12 letter from counsel for ABC: "This is to confirm our

telephone conversation this afternoon that Dr. Foretich accepts the 'walk away' offer made to him in your letter of

November 12, 1997." JA 367. The November 12 letter

provides in part that Foretich is to forego an appeal of the

order granting ABC summary judgment and to "execute a

full, general release, from the beginning of time to the end of

USCA Case #99-7011 Document #486341 Filed: 12/28/1999 Page 6 of 9
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

time, for any person or entity involved in any way with the

... broadcast, cablecast,7 etc. of the docudrama, including a

covenant not to sue" while ABC is to abandon its effort to

recover costs. JA 359-60. Following the letter from Foretich's counsel, ABC prepared the Agreement and General

Release which expressly included "all future sales, licenses,

publication, distribution, exploitation, broadcast, cablecast and

reproduction of the Docudrama and all versions and all

elements thereof." JA 371.

General principles of contract law govern our resolution of

this issue. See Gaines v. Continental Mortgage & Inv. Corp.,

865 F.2d 375, 378 (D.C. Cir. 1989) (quoting Village of Kaktovik v. Watt, 689 F.2d 222, 230 (D.C. Cir. 1982)). Parties may

enter into a binding agreement that later is memorialized in a

written instrument. See Anchorage-Hynning & Co. v. Moringiello, 697 F.2d 356, 363 (D.C. Cir. 1983). In this case, the

__________

6 In his reply brief, Foretich argues that the trial court "should

have taken evidence to resolve contested issues of fact." Reply

Brief at 13. Even considering this untimely argument, Foretich

admitted at oral argument that he did not request a hearing below.

7 The docudrama had not previously been cablecast. See JA

441. Thus the release contemplated by the November 12 letter

necessarily included future airings of the docudrama.

USCA Case #99-7011 Document #486341 Filed: 12/28/1999 Page 7 of 9
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

parties disagree on the extent of the release agreed upon and

reflected in the correspondence between counsel. Although it

speaks in the broadest temporal terms ("from the beginning

of time to the end of time"), the November 12 letter does not

expressly include future broadcasts in its release provision.

Thus, the meaning of the term "full, general release" is not

unambiguous, JA 359, and we may use parol evidence, if any

exists, to determine its meaning. See Nofziger Communications, Inc. v. Birks, 989 F.2d 1227, 1230 (D.C. Cir. 1993)

("[W]hen the meaning of a contract provision is facially

uncertain, a court may resort to an examination of extrinsic

evidence, such as statements, course of conduct, and contemporaneous correspondence, aimed at discerning the intent of

the parties.") (quoting Farmland Indus., Inc. v. Grain Bd. of

Iraq, 904 F.2d 732, 736 (D.C. Cir. 1990)). The affidavit of

ABC's counsel, which was before the district court, manifests

that the parties had a lengthy history of settlement negotiations and proposals, all of which contemplated a release

encompassing future broadcasts of the docudrama.8 See JA

334-42. In light of ABC's unwavering insistence upon such a

release over the course of settlement discussions, Foretich's

reading of the broad language ABC's counsel used in the

November 12 letter, so as not to include future broadcasts, is

not reasonable. The district court did not err in granting (in

relevant part) ABC's motion to enforce the settlement agreement.

C.

The parties' settlement agreement dictates that Foretich

"forgo any appeal of the October 16, 1997 Order [entered

October 22, 1997] granting summary judgment" to ABC in

__________

8 In opposition to ABC's motion below, Foretich relied on his

assertion that he "certainly would never agree to such terms as to

permit future broadcasts." JA 413. The record, however, belies

his assertion. Nine months earlier Foretich had included such

terms in his counter-offer to ABC's offer that he had rejected solely

on monetary grounds. Compare JA 351 (ABC settlement offer of

February 3, 1997), with JA 353 (Foretich counter-offer of February

5, 1997).

USCA Case #99-7011 Document #486341 Filed: 12/28/1999 Page 8 of 9
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

this action. JA 455. Our conclusion that the district court

properly enforced the agreement therefore renders moot

Foretich's challenge to the district court's order denying his

motion to extend time to file a notice of appeal. See Douglas

v. Donovan, 704 F.2d 1276, 1278-79 (D.C. Cir. 1983).

For the foregoing reasons, the district court's order of

January 16, 1998 denying Foretich's motion to extend time to

file a notice of appeal is vacated as moot, see United States v.

Munsingwear, 340 U.S. 36 (1950), and the district court's July

30, 1998 order granting ABC's motion to enforce the settlement agreement is affirmed.9

So ordered.

__________

9 Both parties have filed motions since oral argument: ABC

moved to strike Foretich's letter and supporting affidavit filed

pursuant to Rules 10(e) and 28(j) and Foretich filed a motion to

strike ABC's Reply Memorandum (filed on December 1, 1999). We

deny both motions.

USCA Case #99-7011 Document #486341 Filed: 12/28/1999 Page 9 of 9