Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-03-02845/USCOURTS-ca8-03-02845-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Lula Neguse
Not Party
Jerri Nwachukwu
Appellant
Clint Potts
Not Party
St. Louis University
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Henry E. Autrey, United States District Judge for the Eastern

District of Missouri.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 03-2845

___________

Jerri Nwachukwu, *

*

Appellant, *

*

Clint Potts; Lula Neguse, *

*

Plaintiffs, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the Eastern

* District of Missouri.

St. Louis University, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellee. *

___________

Submitted: October 26, 2004

Filed: November 4, 2004

___________

Before RILEY, McMILLIAN, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Jerri Nwachukwu (Nwachukwu) appeals the district court’s1

 order enforcing

a settlement agreement following a hearing. Nwachukwu argued below and reiterates

on appeal that the final settlement agreement prepared by counsel for the parties was

materially different from the handwritten agreement she signed at the end of a

Appellate Case: 03-2845 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/04/2004 Entry ID: 1830230 
-2-

mediation, and she did not agree to the new terms. She also argues the district court

erred in not allowing her to revoke the final agreement after concluding it was

enforceable, because the agreement contained a clause allowing her to revoke the

agreement within seven days of her signing it.

We review for clear error the district court’s factual findings and de novo its

interpretation of the settlement agreement. See Little Rock Sch. Dist. v. N. Little

Rock Sch. Dist., 109 F.3d 514, 516 (8th Cir. 1997). We find no clear error in the

court’s determination that the final settlement agreement was not materially different

from the handwritten agreement Nwachukwu signed. The final agreement gave

Nwachukwu the same benefits as the handwritten agreement, and both agreements

provided that she would resign and execute a release of all claims, even though the

final agreement contained more expansive or additional clauses related to

confidentiality, release of liability, disclaimer of fault, nondisparagement, and

reinstatement or reemployment. Cf. Sheng v. Starkey Labs., Inc., 117 F.3d 1081,

1083 (8th Cir. 1997) (affirming district court’s findings that deal did not hinge on

particulars such as wording of clauses concerning confidentiality, disclaimers, and

release of liability); Worthy v. McKesson Corp., 756 F.2d 1370, 1372-73 (8th Cir.

1985) (per curiam) (non-negotiated covenants in written settlement agreement that

prohibited seeking reemployment and disclosing terms of settlement did not abrogate

oral agreement to settle).

As to the seven-day revocation clause, its effect is not at issue in this appeal,

because by the clause’s plain language the revocation period did not begin to run until

Nwachukwu signed the agreement, which she had not done at the time of the district

court’s determination. See In re Airline Ticket Comm’n Antitrust Litig., 268 F.3d 619,

623 (8th Cir. 2001); Keymer v. Mgmt. Recruiters Int’l, Inc., 169 F.3d 501, 504 (8th Cir.

1999).

Accordingly, we affirm.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 03-2845 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/04/2004 Entry ID: 1830230