Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caDC-01-07029/USCOURTS-caDC-01-07029-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
District of Columbia
Appellee
Francis J. Henderson
Appellee
Brenda Elaine Makins
Appellant

Document Text:

Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the

Federal Reporter or U.S.App.D.C. Reports. Users are requested to notify

the Clerk of any formal errors in order that corrections may be made

before the bound volumes go to press.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

Argued September 17, 2001 Decided December 3, 2004

No. 01-7029

BRENDA ELAINE MAKINS,

APPELLANT

v.

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AND FRANCIS J. HENDERSON,

ACTING WARDEN, D.C. DEPARTMENT OF

CORRECTIONS CENTRAL FACILITY,

APPELLEES

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Columbia

(98cv02693)

Gregory L. Lattimer argued the cause and filed the briefs

for appellant.

Carl J. Schifferle, Assistant Attorney General, argued the

cause for appellees. With him on the brief was Robert J.

 Bills of costs must be filed within 14 days after entry of judgment.

The court looks with disfavor upon motions to file bills of costs out

of time.

USCA Case #01-7029 Document #863276 Filed: 12/03/2004 Page 1 of 2
2

Spagnoletti, Attorney General. Edward E. Schwab, Deputy

Attorney General, entered an appearance.

Before: HENDERSON, RANDOLPH, and ROGERS, Circuit

Judges.

Opinion for the Court filed PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM: In this appeal from a district court judgment

enforcing a settlement agreement, we certified the following

question to the District of Columbia Court of Appeals:

Under District of Columbia law, is a client bound by

a settlement agreement negotiated by her attorney

when the client has not given the attorney actual

authority to settle the case on those terms but has

authorized the attorney to attend a settlement conference before a magistrate judge and to negotiate

on her behalf and when the attorney leads the

opposing party to believe that the client has agreed

to those terms?

Makins v. Dist. of Columbia, 277 F.3d 544, 553 (D.C. Cir.

2002). The D.C. Court of Appeals, sitting en banc, answered

the question in the negative. Makins v. Dist. of Columbia,

2004 WL 2471504 (Nov. 4, 2004). We must therefore set

aside the district court’s enforcement of the agreement on the

basis of the attorney’s apparent authority. Further proceedings on remand are needed to resolve the remaining evidentiary dispute about the attorney’s actual authority to settle

the case. See 277 F.3d at 545-46.

Vacated and remanded.

USCA Case #01-7029 Document #863276 Filed: 12/03/2004 Page 2 of 2