Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_11-cv-08182/USCOURTS-azd-3_11-cv-08182-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:2000e Job Discrimination (Employment)

---

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

Joe Miller, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Mohave County et al, 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 11-08182-PCT-FJM

ORDER

On January 17, 2013, we entered an order denying plaintiff’s counsel’s Motion to

Withdraw. (Doc. 72). We now have before us defendant’s Motion to Enforce Settlement

Agreement (doc. 70), plaintiff’s Response (doc. 78), and defendant’s Reply (doc. 79). We

also have before us plaintiff’s counsels’ Motion for Reconsideration (doc. 75). 

We denied counsels’ Motion to Withdraw for failure to comply with LRCiv

83.3(b)(3), which provides that no lawyer will be permitted to withdraw once a case is set

for trial unless a substituting lawyer or the client represent that they will be prepared for trial.

The Motion (doc. 67) contained no such certification. Nor did counsel show good cause.

They referred generically to professional considerations, offered to file something ex parte

or in camera, and failed to do so. 

Counsels’ Motion for Reconsideration boldly declares that our order “overlooks or

misapprehends the ethical constraints” and is based on “manifest error.” Motion at 2 (doc.

Case 3:11-cv-08182-FJM Document 80 Filed 01/31/13 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

- 2 -

75). But counsels’ noisy effort to withdraw in the face of the Motion to Enforce Settlement

Agreement speaks for itself. Counsel admit as much by alleging that our “ruling has the

effect of making Counsel a witness with respect to the Motion to Enforce Settlement.”

Motion at 3. Counsel assert that continued representation would cause them to violate ER

1.16(a)(1), (b)(4), (b)(6), 3.1 and 3.3. This means that they believe representation would

violate the Rules of Professional Conduct (1.16(a)(1)); the client insists upon taking

repugnant action or action with which counsel fundamentally disagree ((b)(4)); the

representation will be burdensome or made unreasonably difficult by the client ((b)(6));

counsel could not assert a frivolous position (3.1); and counsel would have to be candid to

the court (3.3). We need know nothing more to decide the Motion for Reconsideration and

the Motion to Enforce the Settlement Agreement.

Under ER 1.16(c), “[w]hen ordered to do so by a tribunal, a lawyer shall continue

representation notwithstanding good cause for terminating the representation.” This is such

a case. The undisputed documents attached to the Motion to Enforce Settlement show that

there was indeed a settlement. A lawyer has the authority, apparent or otherwise, to settle

a case on behalf of a client. If the client disputes that, his beef is with the lawyer, not his

adversary. Our system of justice would not work if a lawyer’s word was not his and his

client’s bond. There was offer, acceptance and consideration. The important terms are clear

and specific. No money would change hands, the case would be dismissed with prejudice

and each side would bear its own attorneys’ fees and costs. This was not a settlement

subject to a condition subsequent. The documentation was a formality and added nonessential terms. Indeed the parties filed a Notice of Settlement (doc. 68), as required by

LRCiv 40.2(d). Once this document is filed the underlying claim is extinguished by the

accord and no longer exists. A lawyer cannot file a Notice of Settlement unless there is a

settlement. The court relies on the Notice. It is a misrepresentation to the tribunal to file a

Notice of Settlement where there is no settlement. Thus the attempt to rescind it (doc. 69)

is a nullity. 

On the uncontradicted evidence, there was a settlement here. Accordingly, it is

Case 3:11-cv-08182-FJM Document 80 Filed 01/31/13 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 -

ORDERED GRANTING defendant’s Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement (doc. 70).

It is further ORDERED DENYING plaintiff’s counsels’ Motion for Reconsideration (doc.

75). Pursuant to ER 1.16(c), counsel shall represent plaintiff through the entry of final

judgment. Thereafter, counsel may move to withdraw again. See LRCiv 83.3(a). 

It is further ORDERED DISMISSING this action with prejudice, each side to bear its own

attorneys’ fees and costs. The clerk shall enter final judgment.

DATED this 30th day of January, 2013.

 

Case 3:11-cv-08182-FJM Document 80 Filed 01/31/13 Page 3 of 3