2006 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 4-20-2006 

# C i s row v . S outh wo o d s S t at e P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 04-2649

F o l low thi s a nd a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi l l a nova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2006

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght 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 nova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2006 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 nova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi l l a nova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " C i s r ow v . S outh wood s S t at e " (2006). 2006 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1241. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi l l a nova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2006/1241H onor abl e J an E. D uB oi s , Seni orD i s t r i ctJ udge fort he East ern D i s t r i ctof * Penns y l vani a, s i t t i ng bydes i gnat i on. NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT N o. 04- 2649 

### BENITA CISR OW, Appe l l ant v. SO UT HW OO DS ST AT E P RI SO N; DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTI ONS; ST AT E O F N EWJ ER SE Y

A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt fort he D i s t r i ctof N ew J er s ey ( D . C . C i vi l A ct i on N o. 02- cv- 03420) D i s t r i ctJ udge: H onor abl e J os eph E. I r enas Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

A pr i l 20, 2006 B efore: S L O V ITE R and A M B R O , C i rcui tJudg es,

and D uB O I S, D i s t r i ctJ udge * ( O pi ni on fi l ed A pr i l 20, 2006)

OP I NI ON2

A M B R O , C i r cui tJ udge B eni t a C i s r ow w as i n s et t l ementnegot i at i ons w i t h t he N ew J er s eyD epart m entof C or r ect i ons . H erat t or neyappr oved the D epart m ent ’ s s et t l ementoffe rand r eques t ed cert ai n t erm s . E ven af

t ert hos e t erm s had bee n added, C i s r ow r efus ed t o s i gn t he s et t l ementagr eement . T he D epart m entm oved t o enfor ce the agr eement , butC i s r ow cl ai m ed thatherat t or neyl acke d author i t yt o bi nd hert o t he agr eement . T he D i s t r i ct C o u rt f o u n d o th e rw ise a n d g ra n ted th e D e p a rtm e n t’s m o tio n . W e d e tec t n o c lea r e rro r in t h e Di s t r i c tCo u r t ’ s f

i n d i n g , s o we a f

f i r m. I . F act ual B ackground an d P roce dural H i s t ory A s w e ar e w r i t i ng her e s ol el yfort he part i es , w e pr ovi de onl ya br i ef s um m aryof t he rel evan tfact s. In 2 0 0 3 , af

ter C isro w h a d p re v a iled in h e r c laim th a t sh e h a d b e e n im p ro p e rly t erm i nat ed byt he D epart m ent , t he M er i tSy s t em B oar d or der ed herr ei ns t at ed w i t h back p a ya n d b e n e f

its. T h e B o a rd a lso o rd e re d th e p a rties to m a k e a g o o d -f a ith e f f o rt to se ttl e on an am ou nt forback payand cou nsel fees. C i s r ow — t hr ough herat t or ney , M i chel l e D ougl as s — negot i at ed w i t h t he O ffi ce of t he A t t or neyG ener al i n an att empt t o r eac h s et t l ement . T hr oughoutM ayand J une 2003, D ou glas s com m un i cat ed w i t h the D epart m ent’ s coun sel . In ear l yJune, D ou glas s a p p r o v e d t h e s e t t l e me n ta mo u n t( $ 1 2 5 , 0 0 0 ) a n d r e q u e s t e d s e v e r a l t e r ms . Th o s e t e r ms w e re d e a lt w ith , a n d C is ro w w a s re in s ta te d .3

N e a r th e e n d o f

Ju n e , D o u g las s to ld th e D e p a rtm e n t’s c o u n se l th a t C isro w w o u ld nots i gn t he agr eementbeca us e s he r eal i zed thats he w oul d l os e 15 vac at i on day s under N ew J er s eyl aw . T he D epart m ent ’ s couns el offe r ed t o compromi s e on the amount ( r oughl y$1, 800) , buta mont h l at erC i s r ow r eas s er t ed herr efus al t o s i gn t he s et t l ement a g re e m e n t. T h e D ep artm en t m o v ed to en fo rce the s ett lem en t i n the D istri ct of N ew Jerse y . In M a y2 0 0 4 , th e D is tr ic t C o u rt , perM ag istrate Ju d g e D o n io, gran ted th e D ep artm en t’ s m ot i on aft eran evi dent i aryhear i ng atw hi ch C i s r ow and D ougl as s bot h t es t i fi ed. C isro w n o w a p p e a ls to o u r C o u rt.

I I . Juri s di ct i on and St andard of R evi ew T he D i stri ctC ou rthad j uri sdi ct i on un der 28 U . S . C . §§ 13 31 and 13 43 . B ecause t h e o r d e ra p p e a l e d f

r o m wa s a f

i n a l o r d e r , we h a v e a p p e l l a t e j u r i s d i c t i o n u n d e r2 8 U. S . C. § 1291. W e re v ie w th e D is tr ic t C o u rt ’s f in d in g s o f

f a c t f o r c le a r e rr o r. U

ni t ed Stat es v. 6. 45 A cr es of

Land , 4 0 9 F .3 d 1 3 9 , 1 4 5 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 5 ); B r is bi n v. Super i orV alve Co. , 398 F. 3d 279, 285 ( 3d C i r . 2005) . “A fac tual fi ndi ng i s cl ear l yerr oneous w hen the r evi ew i ng cour ton t he ent i r e evi dence i s l eftw i t h t he def i ni t e and f

i r m convi ct i on t hata mi s t ake ha s been c om m i t t ed, ” butw e w i l l notr ever s e— even i f w e mi ghthave j udged the evi dence di ffe r ent l yhad w e bee n t he tr i er s of fa ct

— “[i ] f the di s t r i ctcour t ’ s acc ountof the evi dence i s pl aus i bl e i n l i ghtof the r ecor d vi ew ed i n i t s ent i r ety . ” B ris b in , 398 F. 3d at2854

(i n terna l qu o tat ion m ark s o m itted). I I I . D i s cus s i on T h e p a r t i e s a g r e e t h a tN e w J e r s e y l a w i s a p p l i c a b l e h e r e . I n N e w J e r s e y,

“ [ n ]e g o tiatio n s o f

a n a tto rn e ya re n o t b in d in g o n th e c lien t u n les s th e c lien t h a s e x p re ss ly author i zed the s et t l ementort he cl i ent ’ s vol unt aryacthas pl ace d t he att or neyi n a s i tuat i on w her ei n a per s on of or di naryprudence w oul d be j us t i fi ed i n pr es um i ng t hatt he att or ney had author i t yt o ent eri nt o a s et t l ement , notj us tnegot i at i ons , on behal f of the cl i ent . ” A m at uz z o v. Koz m i uk , 703 A . 2d 9, 12 ( N . J . Super . C t . A pp. D i v. 1997) . “Li abi l i t yw i l l be i m pos ed upon the pr i nci pal i n cas es i nvol vi ng appar entauthor i t yw her e the ac t i ons of a pr i nci pal have mi s l ed a thi r d par t yi nt o bel i evi ng t hata r el at i ons hi p of author i t yexi s t ed. ” LoB i ondo v. O ’ C al l aghan , 815 A . 2d 1013, 1018 ( N . J . Super . C t . A pp. D i v. 2003) (i n terna l qu o tat ion m ark s o m itted). D o u g las s te stif

ied th a t sh e h a d re c e iv e d e x p re ss a u th o rityf ro m h e r c lien t to se ttl e t he ca s e. T he D i s t r i ctC our tfound D ougl as s cr edi bl e and he rt es t i m onys uppor t ed byt he evi dence . W hi l e C i s r ow at t acke d t hi s gr antof author i t y , t he D i s t r i ctC our tfound her ar gum ent s unper s uas i ve. A ft er r eview i ng t he ev i den ce, w e beli eve as w el l t hat C i sr ow gav e D ou glas s expr es s author i t yt o s et t l e thi s cas e— and thatD ougl as s had appa r entauthor i t yt o bi nd C isro w to th e se ttl e m e n t ag re e m e n t. W e a lso a g re e w ith th e D istric t C o u rt th a t th e e v e n ts C is ro w c la im s d e m o n s tr a te a la c k o f a u th o ri ty h a p p e n e d a f

te r t h e a g re e m e n t w a s re a c h e d .5

W e t herefore decli ne to ove rturn t he D i stri ctC ou rt ’s fact ual fi nd i ng s. I V . C onc l us i on W i t h n o clearerr or appa renti n the D i stri ctC ou rt ’s fi nd i ng of f actt hat D ou glas s h a d a u t h o r i t yt o s e t t l e , we a f f i r m.