Pursuant to 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determin ed that thi s opinio n should not * be publishe d an d is not precede nt except und er the limit ed circu mstance s set forth in 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 .4. 

### FI N THE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 10- 51197 c /w N o. 11- 50089 Su m m ar y Cal endar

S YL VI A DEL BOS QUE, Pl ai nt i f f - Appe l l ant v. A T& T A D V E R TISI N G , L. P. , doi ng busi nes s as A T& T A dver t i si ng & Pu bl i shi ng, D efen da n t - A pp el l ee

A p p ea l s f

rom the U n i ted S tates D i stri ct C ou rt f ort he W es t er n D i st r i c t of Texas U SD C N o. 1: 08- C V

- 402

B ef ore G A R Z A , SO U T H W IC K , an d H AY N E S , C i rcui t Ju dg es. P E R C U R I A M: * Thi s a ppeala r i s e s f r o m t he di s t r i c t c o ur t ’ s c o ns o l i da t e d o r de r de nyi ng S ylvia D el B osq u e’ s m oti on to rev ok e a s ettl em en t a gr ee m en t sh e rea ch ed w i th A T& T A dver t i si ng, L. P. ( “A T& T”) , gr ant i ng A T& T’ s m ot i on t o e nf or c e t hat s am e agreem en t , an d di sm i ssi n g D elB osqu e’ s d i scr i m i n ati on su i t a gainstA T & T
. D el B osqu e argu es that the di st ri ctcourterr ed i n i t s r esol u t i on of t h e t h ree m ot i on s, United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D September

16, 2011 Lyle W . Cayce ClerkN o. 10- 51197 c /w N o. 11- 50089

Del Bosque also assertedpar all el state-l aw cl aims und er the Tex as C ommissionon 1 Human Ri ghts Act, apparentlyu nder pende nt jurisdiction
. 2 c o nt e ndi ng pr i m ar i l y t hats he w as c o e r c e d i nt o s i gni ng t he s e t t l e m e nt agreem en tan d l acked capaci t y t o consent at t h e t i m e she si gn ed i t
. O u r r evi ew o f t h e r e c o r d d i s c l o s e s n o a b u s e o f d i s c r e t i o n o n t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t ’ s p a r t , a n d we t h e r e f o r e A F F I R M. I . F acts & P rocedu ral H i st ory S yl vi a D elB osqu e f

i led su i t againstA T & T i n t h e U n i t ed S t ates D i st ri ct C ou rt f or th e W ester n D i stri ct o f T ex a s i n M a y o f 2 0 0 8
. D el B osq u e’ s com p l a i n t,
as a m e nde d, a l l e ge d t hatAT& T di s c r i m i nat e d a ga i ns t h er i n here m pl o ym e nt
o n th e b a s is o f r a c e a n d s e x a n d r e ta lia te d a g a in s t h e r a fte r s h e fo r m a lly
c o m pl ai ne d t o A T& T’ s hum an r e s o ur c e s st af f, bo t h i n vi o l at i o n of

T i t l e V I I o f

t he C i vi lR i ght s A c tof

1964. 1 Th e p a rti es engag ed i n se t t l em entdi sc uss i ons t hro ughout t he pr et r i al process, cul m i n ati n g i n a m edi ati on on N ovem ber 18. T h e case di d n otset t l e on t he da y o f

m e di at i o n, b utf

r o m N o ve m be r 18 , 20 10 , unt i l N o ve m be r 22 , 20 10 , t he par t i es c ont i nued ef fort s t o a t t em pt t o r es ol ve t he c as e. D elB os que w as represented b y coun selt h rough ou t t h i s proces s. O n N ovem ber 22, 201 0, D el B o s q u e a n d h e ra tt o r n e y s ig n e d a s e tt le m e n t a g r e e m e n t a f t e r m a k in gce r ta in handw r i t t en c hanges on t he face of t he agr ee m entt hat had bee n pro pos ed by AT & T. On N o ve m be r2 9, 2 01 0, AT& T’ s a t t o r ne y s i gn ed t he a gr e e m e nta nd i n i t i al ed the cha n ges D elB osqu e ha d m ad e. O n N o ve m be r3 0, 2 01 0, D e lBosqu e f i l e d a pr o s e m o t i o n t o r e vo ke t he
s e t t l e m e nta gr e e m e nt
. AT& T r e s po nde d b y f i l i ng m o t i o ns w i t h s upp ort i ng af f i da vi t s t o enfor ce t h e set t l em en t a greem en t an d to di sm i ss t h e case. D el B os qu e fi l ed a r es ponse w i t hout f or m alev i denc e. As r equi r ed by Mid -S o u thN o. 10- 51197 c /w N o. 11- 50089

“Alth ou gha dis trict co urth a s inh er ent po we r toe nfo rc e a na gre em ent tosettleac a se 2 pendingbefore it su mma ri ly , w henoppo sitio n to e nforc ementof the settle ment is b ased not on the merits of the clai m but on a challe nge to the validity of th e a gre ementit self, the parti es must b e allo wed anevidentiary hearin g on dispute d issu es of the validity and scope of th e agreement.” Mid-So ut h Towing, 73 3 F .2d at 3 90. 3 T o w ingC o . v. Har- Wi n , I n c. , 733 F
. 2d 386 , 390 ( 5th C i r. 198 4) , t h e di st ri ct 2
c o ur tc o n duc t e d a he ar i ng o n Dec e m be r 1 3, 2 01 0, a t w hi c h DelBos que , t he att orney w h o represented D elB osqu e a t t h e m edi ati on , an d A T & T ’ s at t orney spok e. N o w i t n esses w ere presente d , bu t i t app ears t h at t h e di st ri ctcourt
con sider ed the atten d e e s ’statem en ts as ev i d en ce; th e a ff i d a vits an d ex h i b i ts pr e s e nt e d wi t h t he m o t i o n t o e nf o r c e w e r e a l so con s i de r e d a s e vi de nc e . The di st ri ctj u dg e caref

u l l y an d di l i gen t l y l i st en ed t o both att orneys an d D elB osqu e. At t he c o nc l us i o n o f

t he hea r i ng, t he di s t r i c t j udg e a dv i s e d DelBos que t hathe i nt e nde d t o e nf

o r c e t he s e t t l e m e nta gr e e m e nta nd t o de ny he r m o t i o n t o r e vo ke t he a gr e e m e nt ; t he di s t r i c t c o ur t e nt e r e d a n o r de r t o t hate f fe c t t he s am e da y but de fe r r e d d i s m i s s alo f t he ca s e unt i lA T& T had pai d D e lB o s que ac c o r di ng t o t he t erm s of

t h e set t l em en t
. D elB osqu e f i l ed a n ot i ce of

app eal f

ol l ow i n g t h e entry
o f t hi s o r de r . A f

t er A T & T sat i s f

i e d t he c o ur t t hati t ha d p ai d DelBos que , t he d i stri ct cou rt en te r e d a n o rd er a n d f i n a lj u d gm en t dism i ssing the cas e w i th p r eju d ic e o n D e c e m b e r3 0 , 2 0 1 0
. D e l B o s q u e th e n file d a s e c o n d n o tic e o f a p p e a l,
an d the t w o app eal s w ere c on sol i da t ed befor e us. I I . St andard of

R evi ew

“ [A ] di st ri ctcourtha s i n h erent p ow er to recogni ze, encou rage, an d w h en n ece ssa ry en force settl em en t ag ree m en ts rea ch ed by the pa rti es.” B e l lv. S chexn ayd er , 3 6 F
. 3 d 4 4 7 , 4 4 9 (5 t h C ir . 1 9 9 4 ). W e r e v ie w th e d is t r ic t c o u r t ’s
e x e r c is e o f th is in h e r e n t p o w e rfo r a b u s e o f d is c r e tio n . Se e i d. a t 4 5 0 ; seeal so D evi l le v . Un i t ed S t ate s , 2 02 F. App’ x 76 1, 7 62 ( 5t h Ci r . 2 00 6) ( unpub l i s he d) (“T h e u ltim a te d e c is io n to g r a n t a m o tio n to e n fo r c e a s e tt le m e n t a g r e e m e n t is
r evi ew ed f

or abuse of di sc r et i on. ” )

. “A di st r i c t c our t abuse s i t s di sc r et i on i f i t : ( 1)N o. 10- 51197 c /w N o. 11- 50089

Wenote that th ere is a circuit split o n this que stion , but this circuit h as not wave red 3 from th e po sitio n we ado pted in Fu lgen ce . See, e.g. , Mak ins v. Dist ri ctof C ol u mb ia , 27 7 F .3d 54 4 , 5 4 7 (D. C

. C ir . 2 0 0 2 ) (r e c o gni z i n g s p lit a n d a p p lyi n g s t at e l aw t o d e t e r mine wheth er enfo rc eab lesettle me nt a gre em ent exis te d inaTitleVI Ic a se); C alebN el so n , The Pers iste nce of General Law , 10 6 C OL UM . L. R EV . 503, 5 26–3 0 ( 200 6) (de scribingsplit). We also note , however, thatn eith er side has argued that this ca se would c ome o ut differe ntlyu nder federal law thanu nder Te xa s l aw . Accordin gly, the conflict is a“false conflict.” SeeK ev inM. Eh ringer En te rs. v. McData Servs . C orp. , No. 10-1 019 8, 2 011 U.S. App. LE XIS 141 73, at *11 n .2( 5 thC ir
. J uly1 1 , 2 0 1 1 ). Th e ca se th at AT &T cite s fo r th e prop os itio n th at th e choice -o f- law p rovis io ngovern s, 4 Oliver v. K

roger C o. , 87 2 F . Supp. 15 45 (N.D. Tex . 19 94), does not support that pro p os it ion
. 4 r e l i e s o n c l e ar l y e r r o ne o us fac t ualf i ndi ngs ; ( 2) re l i e s on er r o ne o us c o nc l us i o ns of l a w ; or (3) m i sa p p l i es th e law to t h e facts. ” In re V ol ksw ag en of

A m . , I n c. , 545 F .3d 3 0 4 , 3 1 8 0 (5t h C ir. 2 0 0 8 ) ( e n b a n c) (in te rn a l qu o ta tion m a rk s o m itted ). I I I . D i s cus s i on D elB osqu e’ s pro s e app el l ate bri efs rai se a m u l t i pl i ci t y of a sser t ed error s i n t h e d i st ri ctcou rt ’ s resol u t i on of thi s c ase; how ever, m ostof her bri ef

add ress es th e s u b s ta n tiv e m e r its o f h e rca s e a g a in s t A T & T , w h ic h is n o t b e fo r e u s . W e ad dr e s s o nl y t he i s s ue o f w he t he r t he di s t r i c t c o ur t e r r ed i n en for c i ng t he
s e tt le m e n t a g r e e m e n t. A s an i n i t i alm att er, w e concl u de that the qu est i on of t h e enfor ceabi l i t y of t he s et t l em entagr ee m enti s, under ourpr ece d en t, t o b e de t er m i ned by 3
r e fe r e n c e to fe d e r a l la w , n o t— a s A T & T w o u ld h a v e u s h o ld

— T e x a s la w . S ee Fu l gence v. J. R ay McD erm ot t& Co. , 6 6 2 F .2 d 1 2 0 7 , 1 2 0 9 (5 th C ir . 1 9 8 1 ). T h is pri n ci pl e i s es peci al l y w el l

- est abli shed i n T i t l e V II cases, i n asm u ch as “ C on gress h a s m a n d a te d a p o lic y o f e n c o u r a g in gv o lu n ta r y s e tt le m e n t o f T itle V II cla im s .” I d. T h e p r e s e n c e o f a ch o ic e -o f-la w p r o v is io n in th e s e tt le m e n t a g r e e m e n t it s e lf l og i ca l l y ca n n ot con trol ou r reso l u ti on of th i s qu estion , i n a sm u ch as th e issu e to be r e s o l ve d i s t he val i di t y o f t hatv e r y ag r e e m e nt ; D e lBos que c o nt e nds t hatt he
a gr ee m en t— i n cl u d i n g th e ch oice-of-l a w pr ov i sion

— i s th e p rod u ct of i n ca p a ci ty
o rc o e r c i o n. S ee g en er a lly R ESTAT EMEN T (S EC OND ) OF C ONFLICTOF L AWS§ 187

4N o. 10- 51197 c /w N o. 11- 50089

R ath er , Olivercorrectly states that, “[q]uestions regardingth e e nforc eab ility of sett le ment a gre em ents in d iversit y casesar e governe d bystat e l aw.” Id
. at 1 5 4 7(em ph a si s a dd ed); see also Locke tte v. Greyho und L ines, In c. , 81 7 F .2d 1 182 , 11 85 (5thC ir. 1 987 ) ( “ Inthis ca se, where jurisdictionis base d upon diversityof citi zen ship, we willapp lyth e substantive l aw of Louisiana to determin e whe the rt he settle ment agreement alle ge dlyentered intobetween Lockette and Greyhoun d is enfo rceable .”). Th e federal courts’ jurisdiction over this c as e is predic ated on thepresence of a fe deralqu estionu nder Title VI I, not diversityof citi zen ship. 5 c m t
. b ( 19 89 ) ( “A c ho i c e - o f

- l aw pr o vi s i o n, l i ke a ny o t he r c o nt r ac t ualpr o vi s i o n, w i l lno tb e g i ve n e f

fe c ti f t he c o ns e nt o f o ne o f t he pa r t i e s t o i t s i nc l us i o n i n t he contrac t w a s o b ta in e d b y im p ro p e r m e a n s, su ch a s b y m isre p re se n ta tion , d u ress, or un du e i n f

l u en ce, or by m i st ak e. W h et h er such consen t w as i n factobtai n ed by i m proper m ean s or b y m i st ak e w i l lbe deter m i n ed by t h e f orum i n accor da n ce w ith its ow n leg a l pr in cip les .”)

. U n der federal l aw , “ ‘ [ o] n e w h o att acks a set t l em en t m u stbear t h e bu rden of sh ow i n g th a t th e con tract h e ha s m a d e is tain ted w i th i n va l i d i ty. ’ ” Mid -S o u th Towi ng , 733 F. 2d at392 ( quot i ng C allen v. Pa. R
. R
. Co. , 332 U
. S

. 6 2 5 , 630 ( 19 48 ) )

. The b ur de n, t he r e f o re, l ayw i t h DelBos que t o e s t ab l i s h b e f o r e t he d i s t r i c tc o u r tt h a tt h e r e w a s s o m e b a s i s f o r h o l d i n gt h e a g r e e m e n t i n v a l i d
. As t h e di st ri ctcourtconcl u d e d , sh e h as not m ett h i s burd en ; i n deed , she of fered
v ir tu a lly n o b a s is fo rth e co u r t t o ru le in h e r fa v o r . F i rst , al th o u g h D e lB osqu e i n i t i al l y sug gest ed that she ha d n oti n fact
s i gne d t he s e t t l e m e nt ag r e e m e nt t hatAT& T pr e s e nt e d t o t he di s t r i c t c o ur t , s he
a d m i tted a t t h e h ea ri n g th a t sh e h a d , i n fa ct, si gn ed the ag ree m en t. Se c o nd, D e lBosque ass e r t e d t hats he ha d b e e n c o e r c e d i nt o s i gni ng t he
s e t t l e m e nta gr e e m e nt
. W he n t he c o ur t i nqui r e d as t o ho w and w hy D e lBos que fe l tc o e r c e d, s he f

i r s ts t at e d t hats he ha d ha d i ns uf f i c i e ntt i m e t o r e vi e w t he
a gr ee m en t de sp i te h a vin g re view ed i t ove r a w ee k en d an d h a vin g con su l ted w i th
c ounse lbe f

or e s i gni ng. O n f

urt herques t i oni ng, D el B os que as se r t ed onl y t hat

“ everybod y w a n ted i tdon e” an d then asked t h e courtf or a r ecess . Sh e of

fered
no o t he re vi de nc e o f

c o e r c i o n o re ve n s t at e m e nt s t hat w o ul d s ho w c o e r c i o n. TheN o. 10- 51197 c /w N o. 11- 50089

B ecau se th e E steban Letter was no t re ceived a s evidence, it was not include d inth e 5 district co urt’s recor d; D el Bosque move s this court to supplement the record on appeal with the letter. Del B osqu e also move s to supple ment the r ec or don appealwithoth er me dical recor ds an d doc uments. Our revi ew onapp ealis nece ssarily limit ed to the recor d develop ed bef ore th e di strictc ourt , see Mar tco L td. P ’ship v. Wello ns, In c. , 5 8 8 F
. 3 d 8 6 4 , 8 7 2 ( 5 th Cir. 200 9); DelB osqu e cannot intro duce new evi dencebefore thi s court. Bec auseth e di strict court atl ea s ts t at ed that it consi dered the Esteb an Letter, we will GRANTth e motionto supple ment as tothis l etter only. Del Bosque’s pending motion s to supple ment the recor d ar e DE NI E D inallo th err es pe ct s. 6 di s t r i c tc o ur tdi d no tc l e ar l y e r r i n f i ndi ng t hatt he fac t s di d no t s upp o r tt he d e fe n s e o f c o e r c io n . See , e . g. , R ESTAT EMEN T (S EC OND ) OFT HE L AW O F C ONTRACTS § § 1 7 4 (i n v a l i d a t i n ga s s e n twh e n “ p h y s i c a l l y c o m p e l l e d ” ) , 1 7 5 ( 1 ) (i n v a l i d a t i ng as s e ntw he n “ i nduc e d b y an i m pr o pe r t hr e atb y t he o t he r pa r t y t hatl e av e s t he vi c t i m no r eas onabl e a l t er nat i ve” ) , 177 ( i nval i dat i ng as se nt pr oc ure d t hro ugh “u n d u e in flu e n ce b y th e oth e r p a rty ”) (19 8 1 ). Thi r d, D el B o s que a r gue s t hats he l ac ke d c ap ac i t y t o e nt e r i nt o t he set t l em en tagreem en t
. D elB osqu e gave the dis t ri ctcourt a s i gn ed, un sw orn l et t erf r om H ol l iE st eban (the “E st eban Let t er ” ) , a nurs e a t an endoc r i nol ogy pra c t i c e, addr es se d “ To W hom I t M ay Concer n” and expre ss i ng t he opi ni on t hat

“ [ d] ue t o M s. D elbos que’ s [ si c ] r ec ent w or se ni ng c ondi t i on, she m ay no t ha ve bee n i n t he be stm edi c al co n d i ti on t o e nt eri nt o a l egalagr ee m ent
. ” Al t hough t he d i s t r i c tc o u r tr e v i e we d a n d c o n s i d e r e d t h e Es t e b a n L e t t e r , De lBo s q ue af f i rm ati vel y ref

u sed t o al l ow t h e court t o receive t h e l et t er i n t o evi den ce— n or i s i t at al l cl ear t h at t h e di st ri ctcourtcoul d h ave accepted t h e l et t er as evi den ce even i f D elB osqu e ha d of

fered i t
. E ven assum i n g a rg u en do that t h i s Lett er

5 consti t u t ed m edi caleviden ce, i t fal l s far shortof provi n g “ i n capa ci t y. ” O t h er t h an t el l i n g t h e courtt h at sh e w a s “d i st rau gh t ” du ri n g t h e m edi ati on , D el B os que o f

fer ed no ot herpurpo r t ed e vi denc e t o s upportherc l ai m of i ncapac i t y. The di s t r i c tc o ur t ’ s de t e r m i nat i o n o f t he fac t s w as no t c l e ar l y e r r o ne o us , a nd t he di st r i c tc our tdi d notabus e i t s di sc r et i on i n rej ec t i ng t he def ens e o f i ncapac i t y. See , e . g. , R ESTAT EMEN T (S EC OND ) OFT HE L AW O F C ONTRACTS § 12( 2) ( 1981)N o. 10- 51197 c /w N o. 11- 50089

As Del Bosque told the district co urt at the hearin g: “Iwas pr eviou sly told when I was 6 pro se to ge t with [AT &T’s attorney] in regards to stipul ated facts because, if we’re mediating something , Ithink it’s critical to know what we’re mediating on and we have toagree on the fact s.” 7 ( l i m i t i ng l ac k o f

c ap ac i t y t o e xt e nd o nl y t o pe r s o ns w ho a r e und e r g uar di ans hi p, m in o r s , m e n ta lly ill, o rin to x ic a te d ); s e e g e ne r al l y Mande l l& Wr ightv . Tho m as , 441 S. W
. 2d 841 , 845 ( T ex. 1 969 ) (a p erson h as “t h e m en t alcapaci t y t o contr act i f she ap preci ated t h e ef fectof w h at s h e w as doi n g an d u n de rstood t h e na t u re a n d co n se q u e n ce s o f h e r a cts a n d th e b u sin e ss sh e w a s tr a n sa ctin g ”). Inst ead of

bei n g a case abou t i n capa ci t y or duress, this seem s to be a case
w he r e D e lB o s que ex pe c t e d t he m e di at i o n t o gi ve hera fe e l i ng o f c l o s ur e t hats he di d n otget
. D elB osqu e argu ed to t h e di st ri ctcourt( an d on a pp eal ) t h at t h ere w as no “m eet i n g of

t h e m i n ds ” a s to t h e set t l em en t agreem en t
. O n f u rt h er qu est i on i n g f

rom t h e di st ri ctcourt , D elB osqu e expl ai n ed that t h e basi s f or her
ar gum e ntw as t hatt he m e di at i o n di d no t r e s o l ve , a nd t he s e t t l e m e nta gr e e m e nt
w as not predi cat ed u pon , t h e f u l lres ol u t i on of

cer t ai n fact qu est i on s t h at D el B osqu e ha d w an t ed the court t o resol ve w h en sh e f i l ed the l aw sui t
. For exam pl e, i td i d n o t r e s o l v e wh e t h e rt h e c i r c u ms t a n c e s o f h e r d e p a r t u r e f

r o m AT &T
c o ns t i t ut e d t e r m i nat i o n, r e t i r e m e nt , o r a di s ab i l i t y r e l e as e . H o w e ve r , s he
e xp r e s s e d no m i s unde r s t and i ng o r m i s t ak e a bo utt he t e r m s o f t he s e t t l e m e nt
a gr ee m en t itself

. I ns t e ad , a tt he he ar i ng, D e lBos que c o nf i r m e d t hats he unde r s t o o d t he a m o u n t of m o ne y t hats he w o ul d r e c e i ve und e r t he a gr e e m e nt bu tnev ert h el ess argu ed that t h e agreem en t w as i n vali d becau se i t d id not
e x p la in h o w th e a g r e e m e n t a r r iv e d a t t h a t a m o u n t. D e lBos que a ppe ar s t o ha ve b e e n und e r t he m i s i m pr e s s i o n t hatr e ac hi ng an ag r e e m e nto n s t i pul at e d fac t s w as s o m e ho w a r e qui r e d p r e c ur s o r t o t he
m e di at i o n pr o c e s s . Tha ti s no ts o : as t he di s t r i c t c o ur t e xp l ai ne d, f r e que nt l y t he 6 oppos i t e i s t he c as e— a m edi at ed ag r ee m entr eac hes an ul t i m at e di spo si t i on t hatN o. 10- 51197 c /w N o. 11- 50089

8 f u n da m en t al l y avoids t h e res ol u t i on of di spu t ed fact s. “ [ S ] et t l em en t i s a proces s of com prom i se i n w h i ch, i n excha n ge f or t h e savi n g of

cos t a n d el i m i n ati on of ri sk, t h e parti es each gi ve u p som et h i n g t h ey m i gh t ha ve w o n h a d t h ey pro c ee ded w i t h t he l i t i gat i on, r at her t han an at t em pt t o pre c i se l y del i neat e l egal ri gh ts. ” Un i t ed S t ate s v. T ex. E d u c. Agency , 679 F. 2d 1104, 1108 ( 5t h C i r . 1982) (in te r n a l q u o ta tio n m a r k s a n d cit a tio n s o m itt e d ). U ltim a te ly , it s e e m s th a t t h is
m i s ap pr e he ns i o n o f

t he pr o c e s s , r at he r t han any m i sun de r s t and i ng as t o t he t er m s of

t he agr ee m ent , dro ve D el B os que’ s m ot i on. Am i sunder st andi ng t hat doe s not“ha[ve] a m at er i alef fec t on t he agr ee d ex c hange of per f or m ance s” has
n o e ffe c t o n th e v a lid ity o f th e c o n tr a c t. R ESTAT EMEN T (S EC OND ) OFT HE L AW OF C ONTRACTS § 1 5 3 (1 9 8 1 ); s e e als o i d. § 1 5 2 cm t. a (“R e lie f is o n ly a p p r o p r ia te in si t uat i ons w her e a m i st ake .
. . has suc h a m at er i alef fec t on t he agr ee d ex c hange
o f p e rfo rm a n ce s a s to u p se t th e v e ry b a sis for th e co n tra ct.”). D e lBos que w as r e pr e s e nt ed w h en s he ne go t i at e d a nd e nt e r e d i nt o t he agr ee m en t. T o t he e xt entt hat D elB os que’ s ar gum enti s pre di c at ed o n an al l ege d m i sunder st andi ng of t he l egalef

fec t of t he c ont r ac t , t he fac t t hat s he w as
r e p r e s e n te d b y re ta in e d co u n s e l s e r io u s ly u n d e r c u ts th a t p o s itio n . Cf. S t i pel covi ch v. S an dD ol l ar Mari n e, I n c. , 805 F
. 2d 599, 606 ( 5t h C i r . 1986) ( n ot i n g, i n a m ari t i m e case, t h at, “ i t i s di f f i cul t t o m ak e o u t a cl ai m of l ack of underst an di ng o f

r i ght s o rt he c o ns e que nc e s o f r e l e as i ng t ho s e r i ght s ” w he n a pa rt y “ w as represen te d by coun selof her ow n choosi n g, ” even i f she al so

“ al l e ge [ d] t hats he w as m i s i nf o r m e d, uni nf

o r m e d, c o nf

us e d, a nd h ad a l ac k of b u sin e ss u n d e rs ta n d in g ”). W e theref

ore p erceive n o a bu se of d i scr et i on i n t h e di st ri ctcourt ’ s deci si on t o enfor ce t h e set t l em en tagreem en t on thi s r eco rd
. Th e di st ri ctcourtact ed
w i t hi n i t s di s c r e t i o n i n r ef u si n g t o s e t a s i de a fac i al l y va l i d s e t t l e m e nt agreem en ton the basi s of t h e sparse evi den ce of fered by D elB osqu e i n sup port of herm ot i on. The di st r i c tj udge ve r y pat i ent l y gav e he r ev er y o ppor t uni t y t oN o. 10- 51197 c /w N o. 11- 50089

9 say w h atever she w i shed a tthe h eari n g— even gran t i n g h er r equ estf or a r ecess t o al l o w hert o co ns i de rw hatshe w ant e d t o sa y. The c o ur t t he n i s s ue d a r ul i ng w e l l

- gr o unde d i n t he fac t s ( and l ac k of fac t s ) pr e s e nt e d. N o m o r e w as r e qui r e d. A F F IR M E D
. M O T IO N S G R A N T E D i n pa rt, D E N IE D i n pa rt.