Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-89-06409/USCOURTS-ca10-89-06409-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Milos J. Jiricko
Appellant
S. Sandy Sanbar
Appellee
Sanbar & Ray
Appellee

Document Text:

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

MILOS J. JIRICKO, M.D., 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

) 

) 

) 

FIL.ED 

United Scates Court of Appea4. 

Tenth Circuit 

JUL 16 1990 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

) No. 89-6409 

v. 

SANBAR & RAY, et al., 

Defendants-Appellees. 

) (D.C. No. Civ-88-2237-P) 

) (W.D. Okla.) 

) 

) 

) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before LOGAN, SEYMOUR, and TACHA, Circuit Judges. 

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel 

has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially 

assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 

34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The cause is therefore ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

Plaintiff Milos J. Jiricko challenges the district court's 

refusal to vacate a stipulated Order of Dismissal with prejudice 

and to grant Jiricko an evidentiary hearing. Jiricko contends 

that he was incompetent at the time he entered into the settlement 

*This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall not 

be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, except 

for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of the case, 

res judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

Appellate Case: 89-6409 Document: 010110038421 Date Filed: 07/16/1990 Page: 1 
agreement, thus making that agreement void. We affirm the 

district court's denial of Jiricko's post-judgment motions for 

relief . 

Jiricko filed a legal malpractice action against the law firm 

of Sanbar & Ray and S. Sandy Sanbar, and defendants filed a 

counterclaim for unpaid legal fees. On Friday, October 20, 1989, 

Jiricko, prose, was scheduled to depose defendant Sanbar. The 

parties instead entered into a joint stipulation for dismissal of 

both the claim and the counterclaim with prejudice. At that time, 

Jiricko stated on the record that he understood the claims were to 

be dismissed, although when asked whether he had been coerced into 

the agreement, his responses were somewhat ambiguous. See rec., 

vol. I, doc. 86, at 5. Nonetheless, he subsequently signed the 

stipulation, which states that he was not under duress or 

coercion. Moreover, according to an affidavit submitted by 

defense counsel with defendants' brief in opposition to Jiricko's 

motion to vacate the settlement, Jiricko had initiated the 

settlement negotiations, he made several changes to the drafted 

agreement, he took some time to consider the stipulation before he 

agreed to it, he telephoned an attorney to discuss the 

stipulation, and he never appeared to be under duress. See id. at 

8-9. 

On the following Monday, October 23, the court entered the 

order of dismissal, and on October 24, Jiricko filed a notice of 

-2-

Appellate Case: 89-6409 Document: 010110038421 Date Filed: 07/16/1990 Page: 2 
withdrawal of the stipulation. In this unverified notice, Jiricko 

stated that he entered into the agreement under duress due in part 

to his physical and mental exhaustion . In denying Jiricko's 

motions, the district court referred to the affidavit of defense 

counsel and to the transcript, and emphasized Jiricko's failure to 

submit affidavits or point to specific facts supporting his 

assertion. 

Jiricko then filed a motion for reconsideration, to which he 

attached his own affidavit. The district court also denied this 

motion. 

The issue before us is whether the district court abused its 

discretion by failing to conduct an evidentiary hearing on 

Jiricko's competency to enter into the settlement agreement . See, 

~, Scutieri v. Paige, 808 F.2d 785 (11th Cir. 1987). We note 

that Jiricko did not file any affidavit until his motion for 

reconsideration, nor did he present an affidavit from a doctor or 

other person able to assess Jiricko's mental and physical state. 

Moreover, he did not counter the statements of defense counsel 

that Jiricko initiated settlement talks, made several changes to 

the draft, took time to consider the agreement, and telephoned an 

attorney. Under all of these circumstances, we cannot conclude 

that the district court abused its discretion in refusing to 

vacate the settlement or to hold an evidentiary hearing. 

-3-

Appellate Case: 89-6409 Document: 010110038421 Date Filed: 07/16/1990 Page: 3 
i 

We therefore affirm the district court's denial of Jiricko's 

post-judgment motions for relief. 

-4-

Entered for the Court 

Stephanie K. Seymour 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 89-6409 Document: 010110038421 Date Filed: 07/16/1990 Page: 4