NO T RE CO MM EN DE D FO R FU LL -T EXTPU BL IC A TI ON Fi le N ame: 10 a0167n .06 No . 09- 3294 UNITED STA

TES COURT OF A PPE A LS FO R TH E SI XTH C IR CU IT
CH RI STINE M OOR E, Pl ain ti ff-A ppel lan t,
v. UN ITED STATES POS TAL SERVIC E et al. , Defend ant s-Appe llees. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON APP EAL F RO M THE U NITED ST AT ES DIST RICT COUR T FOR T HE SOU THER N DI STRIC T OF OH IO

Before: DAUGHT REY, GILMAN, and KET HLEDGE, Circuit Jud ges.
PER C UR IA M. Pl ain ti ff

Chr is ti ne Moore appeals an o rd er of the d is tr ict c our

t t hat b o t h d e n ie d h e r m o t io n t o re s t o re h e r cl a im s o f d is c ri m in a t io n a n d re t a li a t io n t o t h e a c t ive docke t and also g rante d the mo tion of def end ant United Sta tes Postal Service to enforce a s ettl ement ag re ement be tw een t he par ti e s. Moore arg ues that the d is tr ict c our t had jur is dicti on o nly

to re ins tate her

ca use of acti on and not t o enforc e the ag re ement an d, further , t hat t he di str ict c our t abu sed it s d is creti on i n c oncl udi ng t hat t he ag re ement w as i ts el f en forc ea bl e. W e fi nd n o er ror , an d w e th erefo re affi r m.

FACTUA L A ND PROCEDUR A L BACKGROUND
The facts under ly ing Mo ore’s ini ti al compl ain t in thi s matter are noti n di sput e. The pla int iff, an Afri can-Amer ic an female b o rn i n May 1952, beg an w or ki ng for t he U nit edNo. 09- 3294

Moore v. United

State s Post Off

ice

- 2 - Sta tes Po stal Service in 1995

. Af ter injuring her back w hile sorting hea vy packa ges in April 1999, Mo ore “ w as put o n l ifti ng and other re str icti ons by her phy si ci an.” N ev erthel ess , t he pla int iff’s s uper

v is or st il l ordered her to en g ag e i n j ob ac ti v it ies thati nv olv ed mov ing
extremely

heavy mai l cont ain ers. As a re sul t, Mo ore re -i nju re d her back in Febr uar y 2000 and w as forced to mis s addi ti onal w or k t ime. Ac cordin g to the p lai nti ff , upo n her retur n to active status, sh e w as treat ed less solicitou sly than similarly

situate d w hite e mp loyees, male e m plo y ees, and y oung er empl oy ees. F urther more, M oore al leg ed th at s he w as threa ten ed wi th reta liation sh ould she repo rt any ab uses to othe r Postal Se rv ice of f icials. Fol lo w i n g y e t a n o t h e r w o r k
- re l a t e d i n j u r y i n M a y 2 0 0 1 , t h e p l a i n t i ff c l a i me d t h a t s he w as “b loc ked from retur nin g to w or k b ecaus e of t h e d isc ri minat or

y and sex ual ly

hos ti le, and
re tal iat or y i ntent ion s” of her

su per v is ors.
Ev entual ly , M oore fil ed sui t in federal cour t all eg ing g ender and ra ce dis cr imi nati on u n d e r Titl e VI I of the Ci v il R ig hts Ac t of 1964, 42 U .S.C . §§ 2000e -2000e- 17, d is abi li ty d isc rim in a ti o n un d e r th e Re h a b ili t a t i o n Ac t o f 19 7 3 , 2 9 U.S .C . § § 70 1 - 79 6 l, age dis cr imi nati on under the Ag e Dis cr imi nati on in Employ ment Act, 29 U .S.C . §§ 621 - 634, and race- based i nter

ferenc e w it h the r ig ht t o c ontractunder 42 U .S.C . § 1981. The par ti es cons ented to t ra nsfer the c ase to a mag is trate judg e for dis posi ti on pursuantto the prov is ion s o f 28 U. S.C . § 636( c) and, foll ow ing a pe ri od of di sc ov er y , bot h M oore and the Post al Ser

v ic e fil ed moti ons for summar y jud g ment. In an extens iv e order , t he mag is trate jud g e deni ed th e pl ain ti ff ’s mot io n for par ti al summar

y j udg ment and g ra nted the defendant’ s mot ion for s ummary j udg ment in par

t. The cour

t den ied su mmary

j udg mentNo. 09- 3294

Moore v. United

State s Post Off

ice

The record reflect s s ome co nfusion as to dates of the c onferenc es. B oth t he 1 defendant and the cour t refer t o furth e r d is cus si ons on M ar ch 23, 2 007, alt houg h the menti on of the Ma rc h 23 conference by the cour t state s only

that the “ Defendantas ser ts that the c ase w as set tl ed on Ma rc h 23, 2007 at a set tl ement c onferenc e, t he s econd to be hel d i n thi s c ase, and that Pl ain ti f f a n d c o unsel for b oth p arti es w ere present .” Bu t, the sec ond c onferenc e w as act ual ly the meeti ng on Ma rc h 19. Addi ng to the c onfusio n ov er the d ates of the s ettl ement di sc uss ion s w as the l ack of spec ific ity

i n the testi mony

of w it ness es at t he ev ide nti ar y hear ing before the mag is trate j udg e. Pl ain ti ff M oore deni ed any know ledge of

a March 23 con feren ce, an d even the Posta l Serv ice’s w itness, laborre lat ion s s peci ali st Ro by n Funder burg , testi fied only that she w as presentat tw o s ettl ement conferences but coul d noti ndependen tl y co nfir m the ex actdate s o f those proceed ing s.

- 3 - to t he Pos tal Ser

v ic e, ho w ev er , on Mo ore’s cl aims of re tal iat ion and o f dis abi li ty dis cr imi nati on unde r the R ehabi li tati on Act. The par ti es then eng ag ed i n s ettl ement di sc uss ion s reg ardin g thos e remaining claims. Di strict court min ute entries ind icate that set tlem entconferen ces w ere he ld before the mag is trate j udg e, i n the presenc e of the attor n e ys f o r b o th parti es, on M ar ch 9 and Ma rc h 19, 2007. The par ti es ev ide ntl y

concl uded among themsel v es that an ag re ement 1 had bee n reache d on all es sent ial matte rs , bec ause “ the Cour t w as so informed and i ss ued an Order

. . . di smi ss ing the matter w it h preju dic e.” I n i ts enti re ty , t he s ubst anti v e por ti on of the order

of dis mis sal fil ed on Ma rc h 23, 2007, st ated:
The Co urt hav ing been adv is ed by the par ti es that the w it hin ac ti on has been s ettl ed; It is OR DE RE D that thi s a cti on i s h ereby D ISM ISSE D w it h preju dic e, prov ide d tha t any

of t he par ti es may , upo n g ood c ause show n w it hin si xty (60) day s , reo pe n th e ac ti on i f s et tl em en t i s n otc on s um ma te d. Th e C ourt re tai ns jur is dicti on ov er the set tl e m e nt c ontractfor t he pur pose of its enforc ement.No. 09- 3294

Moore v. United

State s Post Off

ice

- 4 - Fur ther more, on M ar ch 23, 2 007, the d ate t he order w as entered, M oore’s co unsel se nt her a l etter enc los ing a c opy

of the o rd er

of dis mis sal and emphasi z ing the 60- day per iod to reop en. The correspon den ce also informe d the plaintif f thather atto rneys w ould “be in to u c h s h o rt l y w h e n w e re c e i v e t h e w r i t t e n a g re e me n t fro m t h e P o s t a l S e r v i c e fo r y ou to sign.” The pl ain ti ff

admi ts that the 6 0- day

per iod to re open t he ac ti on “ w oul d hav e ex pired
as of M ay 22, 2007.” At that ti me, how ev er , “ [b]ot h par ti es w ere s ti ll i n neg oti ati ons about the A g re ement.” The record reflect s t hat a fter t he ent ry of the o rd er

of dis mis sal , t here w as a del ay i n redu cin g the ag re ement t o w ri ti ng . On A pr il 12, 2007, the d efendant s ent t o Mo ore’s co unsel a propose d draft and offered t he names of tw o i ndependen t medi cal professi onal s d esi g nated to c onduc t ex aminat ion s o f the pl ain ti ff to ensure her

fitnes s t o re tur n to w or k. The pl ain ti ff , t hroug h on e of her att or ney s, re spond ed on Apr il 16, 2007, by e-ma il, sugg esting “just 2 m inor chan ges to the se ttlem entagreeme nt” – on e tha t w ould make c lea r that the d efendant w as re spons ibl e for the c ost s o f the phy sical a nd psychological ex am inatio ns an d anot he r t ha t wou l d prov ide th at th e $5 5,0 00 d am age f igure b e p a id in e qu a l a m o u n t s t o Mo o re a n d t o t h e la w f ir m re p re s e n t in g h e r. T h a tsa m e d a y, the s ug g est ed c hanges w ere made b y the defendant and a redrafted ag re ement incorpo rating the alte ration s w as sen t back to Moore’s atto rneys. Approx imat ely

one w eek lat er , on Apr il 24, 2007, Mo ore v is it ed her l awy ers’ off ic es “to read and sig n pa pers.” Beca use sh e w ant ed tim e to review the docu me nts, h owev er,No. 09- 3294

Moore v. United

State s Post Off

ice

- 5 - the plai nti ff

did not sig n the agreement on that day

. Fur ther more, sh e refused to si g n the ag re ement on her next v is itto couns el’ s o ff ic e on Apr il 30, 2007, much t o the di smay of her lawy ers. On A pr il 30, 2007, Mo ore s aw ano th e r a ttorney , w ho had re present ed her i n a w or kers ’ compens ati on matt er , and sh e ag re ed w it h tha t l awy er ’s as ses sment that she “wa s n o tp ro t e c t e d e n o u gh ” u n d e r t h e t e rm s o f t h e p ro p o s e d a gr e e m e n t

. Co n s e qu e n t ly, the pla int iff i nformed her or ig ina l attor ney s, Ma rc Me z ibo v and Stacy Hi nners, that she w as proposi ng addi ti onal rev is ion s t o the ag re eme n t
–e xplici t prov is ion s t hat s he w oul d be
re tur ned t o her job in acc ordance w it h the appl ic abl e c oll ect iv e barg ain ing ag re ement, that the P ost al Ser

v ic e w il l abi de by

al l federal laws and re g ula ti ons prohi bit ing di sc ri minat ion or retaliatio n against he r, and th at th e agreem entdid no ta f f e c tex isting w orkers’
com pen sation claims or f utu re claims arising af ter the da t e o f

t he a greem ent . Hinners communi cat ed th ose re q uest ed rev is ion s t o the Posta l Serv ic e and als o i ncl uded t hree question s the plaint if

f raised regarding her pay, bene f its, and assignmen t upo n he r retu rn to w ork. I n doin g so, atto rney Hinne rs expressed h er o w n op inion th at “the se cha nges are pretty min or & b asi cal ly

st ate w hat i s a lready

es tabl is hed in t h e l a w or co mmon sens e – itw il l jus t mak e [M oore] feel co mfortabl e s eei ng them in ink .”
Onc e more, t he defendant made the req uest ed rev is ion s t o the ag re e m e nt, but Mo ore ag ain refused to si g n the doc ument w hen present ed w it h the “R ev is ed Settl ement Agreem ent ” on June 7, 200 7. As a result, M oore ’s relation ship w ith he r a t t o rn e ysNo. 09- 3294

Moore v. United

State s Post Off

ice

- 6 - dis int eg ra ted, and s he ul ti matel y ter minat ed M ez ibo vand Hi nners a s h er represent ati v es someti me i n J uly

2007. Sh e l a te r re ta in e d the se rv ic es of a new att or ney , G eoff re y Damon, obta ine d her

l eg al file from M ez ibo v ’s fir m, and del iv ered th ose papers t o D amon. After the p ass a ge of tw o more months , on September 27, 2007, the o ff ic e of the Uni ted S tates Att or ney , represent ing the Post al Ser v ic e i n thi s d is pute, recei v ed a letter from att or ney

D amon. In t hat c or re spond ence, D amon out li ned s ev en addi ti onal
mo dif ication s to the settlem entagreeme nt th at w ould be n ecessa ry before Moore would si g n s uch a doc ument. Speci fical ly , the lette r demanded the foll ow ing ch ang es, so me of
w hich con stitute d sub stan tiv e alte ration s: 1. The amount paid to Chr is ti ne Moore in Parag ra ph 4C. of the A g re ement w il l be i ncreased from $27 ,500. 00 to $35, 000.00; the am o unt p aid to Me z ibo v& J enki ns w il l re main the s ame, $27 ,500. 00[.] 2. The a tt a ch e d bi ll , Ex hib itB, for M edi cal Ins urance in the a mount of $2,135. 82 w il l be rendered v oid w it h the U SPS ag re ein g to foreg o any furth er collection ef

forts and /or oth er me asure s against Ms. Moore as a result of this bill. 3. The Sett lementAg re ement will e xpres sl y prov ide for t he U nit ed St ates Di str ict C our

t t o retai n j ur is dicti on ov er the [se ttl ement] ag re ement[. ] 4. Ms . M oore w il l ex press ly be ret u rn e d to Day

Shi ft, w hether

i n a l imi ted duty pos it ion , l ig ht du ty

pos it ion or

full ti me car ri er

pos it ion

. 5. There w il l be full rest orati on of her benefit s, heal th i nsurance and re sti tuti on for all l ostco ntr ibu ti ons to he r pensi on, o r other reti re ment pl an. 6. Sho u l d t h e re b e a b re a c h o f t h e t e r ms o f t h e a g re e me n t , t h e n the brea ching party w ill be liab le to the non -breach ing part y for a reason able aw ard of atto rn ey ’s fees t o be ass ess ed by the Di str ict J udg e. 7

. A n y r eta liatory me asure s taken byUSPS ma nagem entagainst Ms. Mo ore, w il l be s ubj ectto re v iew [by] t he D is tr ict C our

t t o det er mine w hether or not the a g ency

breache d the Set tl ement A g re ement.No. 09- 3294

Moore v. United

State s Post Off

ice

Ev en i f the 60- day

cl ock w ere notto beg in ru nni ng unti l th e D e ce m b e r 2007 2 n o ti f icati on by

the Post al Ser

v ic e tha t i t w oul d notente rt ain the pla int iff’s s ug g est ed modific ati ons, the moti on w as sti ll not ti mely

.

- 7 - By l etter of Dec ember

10, 20 0 7 , the d efendant reje cte d the pl ain ti ff ’s su g g est ed modific a ti o n s. Instead, couns el for th e Pos tal Ser v ic e i nformed D amon, “ W e w il l not neg oti ate a ny

matte rs thathav e al re ady been address ed in the s ettl ement ne g oti ati ons that
re sul ted i n an ag re ement in pr inc ipl e that w as memori ali z ed in the June 2007 S ettl ement Ag re ement.

. . . W e are p re pared to i mplement the ter ms of the or ig ina l Sett lement Agreem ent .”
On Ma rc h 29, 2008, Mo ore filed a moti on to re open the c ase, al leg ing thatsh e had
never agreed to the term s of the settle me nt and that “Mr

. Mez ibov settle d [ h e r] ca se w it hout [her

] k now led g e, i nput, ag re ement, ev en s ig nature . . . .” The defendant op posed the mot ion to re open an d made a cross -mot ion to enfo rce t he s ettl ement ag re ement origi nally accep ted bythe m agistrate judge. T he d istrict court grant ed th e de fe n d a n t ’s moti on to enforc e the se ttl ement ag re ement an d deni ed M oore ’s moti on to reopen o n mult ipl e g ro u n d s. F irst, the cour t not ed th at t he or ig ina l ag re ement c ontai ned a 60- day
w ind ow to m o ve fo r re openi ng sh oul d the se ttl ement ag re ement no t be cons ummated. Mo ore’s moti on, fil ed approx imat ely ten m o n th s a fte r the c los e of thatper iod , w as “s er iou sl y

out of time. ” Secon d , the magi strate j udg e not ed th at t he moti on w as filed by

2 attor ney D amon, w ho had not prop er ly entered an appearance as couns el pursuantto the
re lev ant l ocal r ule s o f cour t. T hird, the magi strate j udg e r ule d tha t bec ause Mo ore “ doesNo. 09- 3294

Moore v. United

State s Post Off

ice

- 8 - not d is pute that a s ettl ement w as re ached betw een her att or ney s and Defendant

. . . , her
reme dy is not reop enin g her case .” From thatruling, Moore no w app eals.
DI SC US SION
Juris diction
Moore f irst conten ds tha t the district court lacked jurisdiction to enforce the parties’ set tl ement ag re ement an d tha t t he c our t t hus er re d i n den ying h e r m o ti on s eeki ng to set
a s id e t h e ju d gm e n t o f d is m is s a l a n d t o re s t o re t h is m a t t e r t o t h e a c t ive d o c k e t

. Ul t im a t e ly, the d eni al of a moti on s eeki ng reli ef f ro m a final j udg ment pursuantto Rul e 60( b) of the Fede ra l Rul es of Ci v il Procedu re i s rev iew ed for abuse of disc re ti on onl y . See Thom pson v. Bell , 580 F .3d 4 23, 4 42 ( 6th C ir . 200 9)

. W e w il l find such an abuse of disc re ti on w hen
w e are l eft w it h a d efini te an d fir m conv icti on th at t he di str ict c ourt h a s co mmitt ed a cl ear e r ro r o f j u d g ment. See id. (quo ti n g Bur re ll v. Hender

son , 434 F.3d 82 6, 83 1 (6th Cir. 2006) ). I n thi s cas e, how ev er , becaus e the determi nati on upon w hic h the Rule 60( b) r uli ng must re st inv olv es a chall eng e to the d is tr ict c our t’ s j ur is dicti on, w e rev iew su ch a q uest ion
o f la w de n ovo . See RE/MAX Int’ l, Inc. v. Realty On e, In c. , 271 F.3d 633 , 640 -41 (6th Cir

. 200 1). Both par

ti es ag re e that the Unit ed St ates Supreme C our t’ s d eci si on i n Kokko nen v. Gua rdian I n s u ra n c e Com pan y of Am erica , 511 U .S. 375 ( 1994) , prov ide s t he anal yti cal f rame w ork for decidin g w het her a fede ral court has p rope rly re t a ined jurisdiction over aNo. 09- 3294

Moore v. United

State s Post Off

ice

- 9 - set t l e me nt ag re ement an d, c onseq uentl y , ov er any enforc ement i ss ues ass oci ated w it h tha t ag re ement. In Kokk

onen , t he C our

t una nimous ly

recog nized t h at “ [e]nforcementof the set tl ement ag re ement

. . . i s more tha n j usta c onti nuati on or renew al of the di smi ss ed s uit , and hen ce requires its ow n ba s is f o r ju ri s d ict ion.” Id. at 378 . Th us, as was the case in Kokk onen , a si mple order of di smi ss al based upon the ex is tenc e of a s ettl ement ag re ement
w as ins uff ic ien t t o i nv o ke federal j ur is dicti on ov er any rela ted e nforce ment i ss ues. How ev er , t he C our

t not ed th at:
The si tuati on w oul d be q uit e different if the par ti es’ obl ig ati on to co mply w it h the t er ms of the set tl ement ag re ement ha d been made par t of the order

of dis mis sal – ei ther

by se parate p ro visio n (suc h as a prov is ion “ re tai nin g jur is dicti on” ov er

the set tl ement ag re ement) or by i ncor porati ng the ter ms of the settlem entagreeme nt in the order.
Id. at 381.
In he r a ppel lat e br ief, M oore c it es thi s l ang uag e butthen arg ues, “ Und er the Kokk onen dec is ion , unl ess the dis tr ict c our t had i ncor pora te d the Sett lementAg re ement into th e dism issal o rder, tha t [sic] the d istrict cou rt would noth ave th e aut hority to enforce the a ll eg ed s ettl ement ag re ement.” How ev er , t his proposi ti on c onv eni entl y ov er loo ks the alt er nati v e method for i nv oki ng federal j ur is dicti on ex plicit ly menti oned i n Kokk

onen , i. e. , inc lus ion i n the order

of dis mis sal of a s eparate p ro v is ion retai nin g j ur isdi ct io n ov er the set tl ement ag re ement.No. 09- 3294

Moore v. United

State s Post Off

ice

- 10 - E x a mi n i n g t h e pro v i s i o n - re t a i n i n g - j u r i s d i c t i o n l a n g u a g e o f Kokk onen , w e ha v e he ld that the S upreme C our

t’ s r uli ng i n tha t c ase “ re q uires [onl y] a re asona ble i ndi cat ion thatthe
cour t has retai ned j ur is dicti on, ‘ such as a prov isi o n “ re tai nin g j ur is dicti on” ov er the settle me nt agreem ent .’” RE /M AX , 271 F .3d a t 643

. Mo re ov er , w e hav e cit ed w it h approv al the r uli ng s of si ste r ci rc uit s a dher ing to the b ro ader i nter pretati on of the Kokk onen l ang uag e, inc lud ing the Fi fth Ci rc uit ’s hol din g i n Bel l v. Schexnay

der , 36 F.3d 447 , 448 (5th Cir. 1994 ), “t hat the dis tr ict cour

t had proper ly

retai ned j ur is dicti on by

i ncl udi ng l ang uag e i n i ts dis mis sal
order thatg av e t he par

ti es the r ig ht t o reopen t he j udg ment i f a set tl ement w as not
consu mm ate d w ithin sixty days.” RE /M AX , 271 F.3d at643 (fo otn ote omitt ed).
In this case, the dis tr ict cour t i ss ued an order

of dis mis sal thatal so “p ro v ide d tha t any of the pa rties ma y , upo n good cau se sho w n w ithin sixty (60) d a ys , r e ope n the action if set tl ement i s n ot c onsummate d.” M ore s ig nific antl y , t he mag is trat e j u d g e too k t he
a d v i s a b l e , a d d i t i o n a l s t e p i n h i s d i s mi s s a l o rd e r o f specifica lly

retai nin g jur is dicti on ov er any enforc ement di sput es, by st ati ng that“ [t] he C our t retai ns jur is dictio n o ver the s ettl ement cont ra ct for th e pur pose of its enforc ement.” Be caus e “ a provi si on ‘ re tai nin g j ur is dicti on’ over the settle me nt agreem ent ” w as expressly in clude d in the order of dismissal, th e district
court pro p e r l y

e x e r c i s e d j u r i s d i c t i o n i n t h i s m a t t e r o v e r t h e P o s t a l S e r

v i c e ’ s re q u e s tfor enforc ement.No. 09- 3294

Moore v. United

State s Post Off

ice

- 11 - Enforceme nt
Moore ne xt asserts th at even i f the district court had jurisdiction over the def end ant ’s request for enforcem entof the set tlem entagree m e n t , t he co urt erred in orde ring such enf o rc ement be caus e M oore nev er co nsent ed to the ag re ement an d no final , w ri tten set tl ement be tw een t he par ti es had been reache d. W hether the par ti es actu all y

reache d an ag re ement i s a q uest ion of fact for the dis tr ict cour

t and an is sue that w e rev iew for cl ear er ro r. See RE

/M AX , 271 F .3d a t 645

. “[ H] ow ev er , w e rev iew the dist ric t cour

t’ s d eci si on to g ra nt a moti on to enforc e the se ttl ement ba sed o n i ts p re li minar y factual findi ng for a n abu se of discretion. ” Id. ( ci tati on omi tted)

. The di str ict c our

t mi nutes i n this m atter

clear ly i ndi cat e tha t s ettl ement c onferenc es w it h counsel for M oore and the P ost al Ser v ic e w ere hel d before the mag is trate j udg e on Ma rc h 9 a nd M ar ch 19, 2 007. ByMarch 23, 20 07, moreov er , t he par ti es had adv is ed th e cour t t hat t he ac ti on had been s ettl ed. In l ig ht of the mag is trate judg e’s famil iar ity w it h the negotia tions a nd th e represe nta tions o f coun sel for t he litig ant s, the reco rd b efore this cou rt
on a pp e a l doe s not sup port Moo re’s assertion thatthe m agistrate judge clea rly erred in
con clu d in g t hat a n ag re ement ha d been re ached

. In fact , M oore’s ow n dec larati on acc ompany ing her

2008 moti on to reopen the case admit s that her then -a ttor ney

“ set tl ed [the ] case, ” albeit “w ithou t [Moore’s] kno w ledge, inp ut, a greem ent , even sig nat ure . . . .”
Gi v en th e ev ide nti ar

y su ppor t i n the appel lat e record for the d is tr ict c our t’ s c oncl usi on that an ag re ement ha d i ndeed been re ached by the par ti es, the sol e remaini ng i ss ue onNo. 09- 3294

Moore v. United

State s Post Off

ice

- 12 - appeal i s w hether the mag is trate jud g e abuse d his dis creti on in order ing thatthe set tl ement ag re ement be enforc ed, d espi te M oore’s co ntent ion s t hat s he nev er ac q uie sc e d to the ter ms c o n ta in e d w it hin the ag re ement, as ev ide nced by the fact th at t he ag re ement w as nev er put in w ri ti ng . But, w e hav e held that a distr ict cour t “has the inh erent author ity and eq uit abl e pow er

t o e n fo rc e ag re ements i n s ettl ement of l it ig ati on before i t, ev en i f that agreem ent has n ot be en red uced to w riting.” Bowate r N. Am . Corp. v. Murray Mach., Inc. , 773 F .2d 7 1, 76 -7 7 ( 6th C ir . 198 5)

. Indeed, as w e s tated i n RE /M AX : The ex is tenc e of a v ali d ag re ement i s n ot di mini shed by the fact th at t he par ti es hav e y et to memor ial iz e the ag re ement. W hen par ti es hav e ag re ed o n t h e e s s e n t ia l t e rm s o f a se t t le m e n t , a n d a ll t h a tr e m a in s i s t o m e m o ri a li ze the a gre e m e n t in w ri ti ng , t he par ti es are bound by

the ter ms of the oral ag re ement.
271 F .3d a t 646

. Fur ther more, to the extent that pla int iff M oore felt that the ter ms to w hic h she ag re ed
w ere “ not c onsummate d,” the dis tr ict cour t all ow ed her 60 day s to “reopen the act ion .” Sh e chos e notto av ail hersel f of thatopti on. Beca use the o rd er of dis mis sal w as entered by the dis tr ict c our

t on Ma rc h 23 , 2 0 07, M oore had unti l Ma y 22, 2007, to rais e any co mplai nts abo ut th e agreem ent . Althou gh th e plaint if f co nte nds tha t she w as, at th at tim e, un aware of the una ccept able term s tha t her attorne y had negotia ted on her beh alf , t h e re c o rd est abl is hes that M oore w as in fact pri vy to the subs tanc e of the set tl ement do cumentpr ior to t he M ay

22 d eadl ine

. In one of her ow n decla ra ti ons, for ex ample, M oore admi tted that she w as cal led to a tt o rn e y Mez ibo v ’s off ic e on Apr il 24, 2007, to rev iew and si g n theNo. 09- 3294

Moore v. United

State s Post Off

ice

- 13 - set tl ement ag re ement. She re fused to be press ured i nto a cti on atthatti me, how ev er , and took the documenthome w it h her to rev iew

. W hen s he retur ned t o her co unsel ’s off ic e on April 30, 20 07, she w as again of fered the op portu nity to sign the agre e m e n t , but again decl ine d to do s o. There si mply ca n be no d isp u te t h a t Moore kn ew of the t er ms of the agreem entw ithin th e 60 -day period set ou t in the se ttlem entorder. The mag is trate j udg e’s order deny ing M oore’s m o tion to rest ore her ca se to t he act iv e doc ketal so re cog niz es that “e v en c onsi der ing the Defendant ’s represent ati ons that the partie s cont inue d to corresp ond until mid -Decem ber[ ] 20 07 [when th e Post al Servi ce ind ic ated that it w oul d no lon g er neg oti ate matters t o w hic h the par ti es had al re ady

ag re ed in pr inc ipl e], a M ar ch 2008 f il ing , req uest ing reopeni ng of the c ase, i s s er iou sl y out of time. ” Indeed, the defendant’ s cor re spond ence ind ic ati ng it s re fusal to enga ge in furth er neg oti ati ons w as dated Dec ember 10, 2007, a full 110 day s b efore M oore fil ed her moti on to rest ore the ca se to t he ac ti v e tr ial doc ket

. The pl ain ti ff ’s f a il ure to abi de by the
re q uirements of the d is mis sal order thus under mines her

pos it ion on appeal and re futes any int imat ion on h er

par t t hat t he mag is trate j udg e abus ed hi s d is creti on i n order ing the enforc ement of the se ttl ement ag re ement.
F i na l l y , to t he e xte ntt ha t M oo re’ s c laim on app eal i s n ott ha t th e s et tl em en t te r ms to w hic h s he ag re ed w ere notco nsummated , butthatsh e nev er ag re ed to any

ter ms of set tl ement w hats oev er , t his presentac ti on is not the proper v ehi cl e to air her g ri ev ance. I n our legal sy stem , litig ant s are g e nera lly bou nd b y

the act s and represen tatio ns of theirNo. 09- 3294

Moore v. United

State s Post Off

ice

- 14 - attor ney s. See Lin k v. W a b a sh R. Co. , 370 U .S. 626, 634 ( 1962)

. In t his ca se, M ez ibo v re present ed to the di str ict c our t t hat M oore and the P ost al Ser v ic e had re ached an ag re ement on al l mater ial i ss ues and that the parti es w ere merely aw ait ing the mini ste ri al tas k o f reduc ing thei r ag re eme n t to w ri ti ng . Thus, if there w ere i ndeed n o meeti ng of the minds and no ag re ement, or i f Me zibovw it hhel d c ru ci al infor mati on reg ardin g the ag re ement f ro m his cli ent, M oore’s recou rs e is not throug h the fil ing of a R ule 60( b) moti on to s et as ide the cour

t’ s o rd er of enforc ement, but rather throug h an act ion ag ain st Me z ibo v for l eg al malpract ic e. CO NC LU SION
For the re asons se t outabov e, w e c oncl ude t h a t Mo ore fail ed to av ail hersel f in a ti mely manner of the a v enues present ed to her to chal len g e the leg it imacy of the set tl ement agreem ent betw een her and her emplo y er. T he magistrate judge thu s did not a b u s e h is discretion in enforcing that agreem ent . W e the refore AFFIRM th e judgme nt of t he d istrict
cour t.