2003 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 6-30-2003 

# S heet W ork e rs I n tl v . N ew B r unswick Ge n P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : N on-P r e c e de n t i al D ocke t N o . 02-1348

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al w ork s at : h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a w . v i l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2003

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t t o you for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i l l a no va U nive r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. It h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2003 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a no va U nive r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. F or mor e infor m at ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j a min . C a rl s on@l a

w . v i l l a no va . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion
" S he e t W orke r s I n tl v

. N ew B r un s w ick Ge n " (2003). 2003 D e cisio n s . P ape r 428. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w . v i l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2003/428NOT PRECEDE NTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE TH IRD CIR CU IT
No. 02-1348
SHEET WORKERS I NTERNAT IONAL ASSOC IAT ION L OCAL 2 7 ANNUI TY, HEALTH & WE LFARE , V ACATI ON, EDUCATI ON AND UNEMPLO YMENT FUND S; THOM AS B. STA PLETO N; GILBER T H. NEL SON, as Trustees and Fi duc iari es fo r S HEET MET AL WORKERS INT ERNATI ONAL ASS OCI ATI ON LOCA L 27 AN NUITY FUND ; PETER A . FAGAN ; BETTY A . HOGA N, as Trust ees an d Fi duc iari es fo r S HEET MET AL WORKERS INT ERNATI ONAL ASS OCI ATI ON LOCA L 27 VA CATIO N FUN D; GERA RD EZ YSKE , as Trus tees and Fi duciari es for SHEET MET AL W ORK ERS INTE RNA TIONA L ASSO CIATION LOCA L 27 EDU CATIO N FUN D; Carl D. Sommers; Robert Brown, as Trus tees and Fi duciari es for SHEET MET AL W ORK ERS INTE RNA TIONA L ASSO CIATION LOCA L 27 UNEMPLOYMENT FUND

v. NE W BR UNS WI CK G EN ER AL SH EE T ME TA L WO RKS ; J OHN GRY WAL SK I ; J MJ M AN AG EM EN T C OM PA NY , LL C.,

Ap pellan ts
ON APPEAL FROM THE UNI TED STATES DIST RICT COURT FOR

THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY (Dist. Court No. 98-CV-05490) Distri ct Court J udge: Dennis M. Cavanaugh

Argued on June 2, 2003 Bef ore: AL ITO , RO TH , ST AP LE TO N, Circuit Judges (Opinion Fi led: J une 30, 2003)1 Ap pellan ts base their arg um ent on the prin ciple th at a settlem ent ag reem ent is

treat ed a s a c ont ract, Pennwalt Corp. v. Plough, Inc. , 676 F.2d 77, 79 (3d Cir. 1982), and, theref ore, t he vali dity

of the set

tlement is determinabl e based on the tradi tionalrules of contra ct form ation. R eleva nt sectio ns of Res tatem ent (S econ d) of Co ntracts (1 979 ) state -2- John A. Craner ( Argued) Crane r, Sat

ki n & Sc he er , P .A
. 320 Park Avenue, P.O. Box 367 Scotch Plai ns, New Jersey 07076 Counsel for

Appellant s Mark E. Belland (Argued) Steven J. Bushinsky Tomar, O’Brien, Kaplan, Jac oby & Graziano, P.A
. 20 Brace Road Cherry Hill, New Jersey 08034 Counsel for

Appellee s
OPINI ON OF THE COURT

PE R C URI AM: The appella nts chal lenge the District Court ’s deni al of their cross moti on, purs uant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(1), (4) and ( 6), t o vacate t he judgment r esulting from a set tlement agreement entered into by the parti es on April 23, 2001. The appe llant s’ moti on chall enged the se ttl ement on two grounds: (1) that the settlement acc epted bythe Dist rict Court did not

repres ent a meeti ng of the parties ’ minds as to all e ssenti al te rms of settlement 1 and (2) that the appell ants’ previous attorney, who accepted the settlement onthat an alleged c ontract is only enforcea ble wh ere “the terms o f the contrac t are

reas ona bly ce rtain ,” id . at §33 , and th e partie s to the a greem ent “m utual[ ly] assent” to tho se te rms , id . at §1 7(2 ).

2 This C ourt has ap plied the relevan t state’s law of ag ency whe re an attorney’s authority to settle litigation is at issue as “the fo cus [in suc h instances] is on the attorney’s relat ionshi p with his clie nts” and “no s ubstantial f ederal interest i s affect ed.” Tiernan v. Devoe , 923 F.2d 1024, 10 33 (3d C ir. 1991) (involving state and fed eral claims); Complaint of Banker s Trust Co. , 752 F.2d 874 (3d Cir. 1984 ) (involving fe deral claims). New Jersey l aw, the appl icabl e state law in this i nstance recognizes the doctrine of apparent authori ty in such si tuati ons and place s the bur den on the party chall enging the settlement t o rebut a presumption t hat the attorney had authori ty to ente r int o that settle me nt. United States Ply wood v. Neidli nger , 41 N .J. 66 , 74 ( 196 3). -3- behalf of hi s cli ent in ope n court, did not have suffici ent authority t o enter i nto a bindi ng settlem ent ag reem ent. U pon review of the record , we d isagre e w ith the a ppella nts on both grounds. We are sati sfied t

hat the terms of agreement ente red into the rec ord on April 23, 20 01 , co ns t i t ut ed a “ me eti ng of t he mi nd s” as t o e ss en t i alt erms of se t t l em en t . We theref ore hold t

hat the Distri ct Court di d not err when it decl ined to va cate the settlement on the ground t

hat the agreement s et fort h in open court

was incomplet e. We also decli ne to reve rse the District Court ’s deni al of the motion t o vacate t he ju dg m en t re su ltin g f ro m se ttle m en t o n g ro un ds of in su ff ici en t au th or ity. 2 Upon reviewing the rec ord in r egard to t he negoti ations and proceedi ngs leadi ng to settlement , we find suffici ent evi dence of apparent authori ty to sust ain the Distri ct Court’ s acti on. The parties do not dis pute that appel lant Gry walski engage d in exte nsive telephone conver sati ons with his attorney during settlement negotiations on the morning of April 23, 2002.-4-

Additional ly , as expl ained bythe Dist rict Court, “ [o]n the record, t he Court confi rmed that bo th sides und erstoo d the a greem ent an d the a ttorneys rep resen ted tha t their clien ts understoo d and a pprove d the settlemen t.” App. at 17 a-18a. Finally, while the de fendan t’s lengthy delayin chal lenging t

he enter ed settlement i s not di rectl y r elevant to the i ssue of apparent authority , we note that this del ay renders t he appellants’ current

position less convinci ng. For the for egoing rea sons, we affi rm the judgment of the Dist

rict Court deny ing the appel lants ’ Rule 60(b) motion t o vacate t he judgment r esulting from the settlement entere d by the parti es on April 23, 2001.