Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_05-cv-03759/USCOURTS-azd-3_05-cv-03759-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1983 Civil Rights

---

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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Kathleen Zeinaty, a single woman, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Tim Schimikowsky and Shannon

Schimikowsky, husband and wife; Steve

Muell and Jane Doe Muell, husband and

wife; Rodney B. Head, Chief of Police,

Bullhead City Police Department;

Bullhead City Police Department; and

City of Bullhead, 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-05-3759-PCT-DGC

ORDER

On June 9, 2006, the Court held an evidentiary hearing on Defendants’ motion to

enforce settlement. Docs. ##12, 15, 17. The Court heard testimony from David G. Bednar

(Plaintiff’s former attorney), William Doyle (defense counsel), and Plaintiff Kathleen

Zeinaty. Several exhibits were received in evidence during the hearing, including a tape

recording of telephone conversations between Plaintiff and Mr. Bednar. Following the

hearing, the Court listened to the tape recorded conversations three times. 

A. General Principles.

The Court has jurisdiction to rule on the motion and enforce the settlement if

appropriate. See TNT Mktg., Inc. v. Agresti, 796 F.2d 276, 278 (9th Cir. 1986) (“The district

court [has] inherent power to enforce the agreement in settlement of litigation before it[.]”).

The construction and enforcement of the settlement is governed by Arizona contract law.

Case 3:05-cv-03759-DGC Document 39 Filed 06/09/06 Page 1 of 5
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

- 2 -

See Jeff D. v. Andrus, 899 F.2d 753, 759-60 (9th Cir. 1990) (“The construction of settlement

agreements are governed by principles of local law which apply to interpretation of contracts

generally.”).

An evidentiary hearing is required to resolve the factual dispute about whether

Plaintiff authorized her former counsel to settle this case. See Adams v. Johns-Manville

Corp., 876 F.2d 702, 708 (9th Cir. 1989) (“[W]here the parties dispute the existence or terms

of the agreement, an evidentiary hearing is required.”). Because Defendants’ motion seeks

the equitable remedy of specific performance, the Court may resolve the factual dispute. See

id. at 709 (“The motion to enforce the settlement agreement essentially is an action to

specifically enforce a contract. ‘An action for specific performance without a claim for

damages is purely equitable and historically has always been tried to the court.’”) (citation

omitted); Hays v. Fischer, 777 P.2d 222, 226 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1989) (attorney authority is a

question of fact, and the trial court’s findings will not be disturbed unless they are

unsupported by the evidence or are erroneous as a matter of law).

“An attorney is not his client’s general agent and has no authority merely by virtue

of retention in litigation to impair the client’s substantial rights or the cause of action without

the client’s consent. However, where the client expressly so authorizes the attorney, the

attorney may enter into an agreement on the client’s behalf compromising a lawsuit, and his

action in doing so binds the client.” Id. at 227 (citations omitted).

B. Findings.

The Court finds that Plaintiff Kathleen Zeinaty authorized attorney David Bednar to

settle this case for $15,000 and that Mr. Bednar and counsel for Defendants subsequently

entered into a settlement agreement. In support of this conclusion, the Court makes the

following findings.

1. Plaintiff retained attorney David Bednar to represent her in this litigation.

Plaintiff signed a Retainer Agreement on December 6, 2004, a copy of which was admitted

as Exhibit 2 at the hearing. Paragraph 6 of the Retainer Agreement specifically states that

Mr. Bednar’s firm “will not enter into a settlement without Client’s consent.” 

Case 3:05-cv-03759-DGC Document 39 Filed 06/09/06 Page 2 of 5
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 -

2. Mr. Bednar engaged in settlement discussions with Defendant City of Bullhead

before the litigation was filed. Those settlement discussions continued during the course of

the lawsuit. In late December of 2005, shortly before discovery responses were due, Mr.

Bednar discussed with defense attorney William Doyle the possibility of settling the case for

$15,000. 

3. On or about December 29, 2005, Mr. Bednar discussed settlement in a

telephone conversation with Plaintiff. Plaintiff taped the conversation without Mr. Bednar’s

knowledge. A copy of the tape was received in evidence at the hearing as Exhibit 5. Mr.

Bednar recommended in the conversation that Plaintiff settle the case for $15,000. Plaintiff

initially expressed reluctance to settle for this amount, but later said she would consider it.

Although Mr. Bednar strongly recommended that Plaintiff accept the offer, he did not purport

during the conversation to have authority to settle, nor did he try to bully or force Plaintiff

to accept the offer. He clearly was waiting for her decision.

4. On January 3, 2006, Plaintiff called Mr. Bednar and, in a brief conversation,

told him she would settle for $15,000. Although Plaintiff testified that the conversation did

not occur, or, if it did, that it did not include her authorization of the settlement, the Court

found Mr. Bednar’s testimony more credible. 

5. The next day, January 4, 2006, Mr. Bednar contacted Mr. Doyle and informed

him that Plaintiff had agreed to settle the case for $15,000. Mr. Doyle informed Mr. Bednar

that Doyle had authority to agree to the settlement on behalf of all Defendants, but that the

settlement would need to be approved by the Bullhead City Council. 

6. On January 17, 2006, Mr. Doyle received confirmation that the City Council

had approved the settlement. 

7. On January 18, 2006, Mr. Doyle wrote a letter to Mr. Bednar which stated:

“This correspondence will confirm that we have settled the above-referenced matter on

behalf of all defendants for $15,000. Please forward me your tax identification number and

I will order an appropriate draft and forward it to you along with a Release and Stipulation

to Dismiss.” Doc. #12, Ex. 2.

Case 3:05-cv-03759-DGC Document 39 Filed 06/09/06 Page 3 of 5
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

- 4 -

8. On January 19, 2006, Mr. Bednar wrote Plaintiff and informed her that the

Bullhead City Council had approved the $15,000 settlement she had authorized. A copy of

the letter was admitted as Exhibit 4 during the hearing.

9. Plaintiff subsequently contacted Mr. Bednar, told him she was terminating his

employment as her lawyer, and traveled to his office to obtain a copy of the file. Mr. Bednar

filed a motion to withdraw as counsel which was granted on February 15, 2006. Doc. #24.

10. These findings are supported by the testimony of witnesses at the hearing,

including the Court’s assessment of credibility, the documentary evidence submitted during

the hearing, and the telephone conversations taped by Plaintiff. 

C. Conclusions.

1. Defendants have carried their burden of proving by a preponderance of the

evidence that Plaintiff authorized her attorney, David Bednar, to settle this case for $15,000.

2. Following that authorization by Plaintiff, an offer and acceptance occurred

during the January 4, 2006, conversation between attorneys Bednar and Doyle. The contract

formed during this conversation was conditioned on approval of the settlement by the

Bullhead City Council.

3. The City Council approved the settlement on January 17, 2006. This fact was

communicated to Mr. Bednar by letter on January 18, 2006. As of this date, the parties had

entered into a binding settlement agreement.

4. Plaintiff’s subsequent efforts to disavow the settlement do not alter the fact that

a binding settlement agreement was reached. 

5. The Court will enforce the settlement agreement. Defendants shall tender the

settlement amount of $15,000 to Plaintiff and her counsel. Upon confirmation that the

settlement amount has been tendered, the Court will dismiss this action with prejudice.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

1. Defendants’ Motion to Enforce Settlement (Doc. #12) is granted. CoDefendants’ joinder in the motion (Docs. ##15, 17) are granted.

2. All remaining motions are denied as moot.

Case 3:05-cv-03759-DGC Document 39 Filed 06/09/06 Page 4 of 5
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

- 5 -

3. Defendants shall tender the settlement amount of $15,000 to Plaintiff and her

counsel on or before June 30, 2006, and shall confirm the tender of this

amount to the Court on or before July 7, 2006, at which time Defendants shall

also submit a proposed order dismissing this case with prejudice.

DATED this 9th day of June, 2006.

Case 3:05-cv-03759-DGC Document 39 Filed 06/09/06 Page 5 of 5