1The Honorable E. Richard Webber, United States District Judge for the Eastern

District of Missouri.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 99-3405

___________

Paula Johnson, *

*

Appellant, *

*

v. * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the

Jerome J. Dobson; S. Sheldon * Eastern District of Missouri.

Weinhaus, * 

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Intervenors Below, *

*

Chrysler Corporation, *

*

Appellee. *

___________

 Submitted: September 28, 2000

 Filed: October 4, 2000

___________

Before RICHARD S. ARNOLD, BOWMAN, and BEAM, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

After Chrysler Corporation moved to compel the enforcement of a settlement

agreement that it alleged it had reached with appellant Paula Johnson, the district court1
-2-

held an evidentiary hearing at which Johnson, her attorneys, and Chrysler’s attorney

testified extensively. Crediting the attorneys’ testimony, the court concluded that a

valid settlement agreement had been authorized and reached, and enforced it. Johnson

appeals the resulting dismissal of her lawsuit against Chrysler, and we affirm. 

Upon a thorough review of the record before us, including the transcript of the

evidentiary hearing held below, we cannot say, in light of the district court’s credibility

determinations, that the court clearly erred in finding Johnson knowingly and

voluntarily authorized her counsel to settle her action according to the terms of the

settlement agreement at issue. See Mueller v. Guardian Life Ins. Co., 143 F.3d 414,

416 (8th Cir. 1998) (district court did not clearly err in finding plaintiff had given his

attorney express authority to settle case according to terms of employer’s counteroffer,

in light of district court’s credibility determinations, evidence supporting its findings,

and reasonable inferences drawn from evidence).

Likewise, we conclude the district court did not clearly err in finding that, in

accordance with the authorization Johnson had given her attorneys, the parties entered

into a valid oral, global-settlement agreement on May 14, notwithstanding minor laterresolved issues. See Link v. Wabash R.R., 370 U.S. 626, 633-34 (1962) (client bound

by acts of attorney); Gilbert v. Monsanto Co., 216 F.3d 695, 698, 700 (8th Cir. 2000)

(upholding oral settlement); Sheng v. Starkey Labs., Inc., 117 F.3d 1081, 1083 (8th Cir.

1997) (fact that parties left some details for counsel to work out during later

negotiations cannot be used to abrogate otherwise valid agreement); Worthy v.

McKesson Corp., 756 F.2d 1370, 1372 (8th Cir. 1985) (per curiam) (enforcing global

settlement). Further, we conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion in

denying Johnson’s motion to sanction the attorneys, because the court found they had

acted in good faith, see Miller v. Bittner, 985 F.2d 935, 938-39 (8th Cir. 1993); or in

refusing to reconsider its decision to enforce the settlement agreement and to dismiss

the case, see Sheng, 117 F.3d at 1083. We decline to address Johnson’s reply-brief

argument, which rests on evidence not in the record before the district court. See
-3-

Mahaney v. Warren County, 206 F.3d 770, 772 n.2 (8th Cir. 2000) (per curiam) (claims

raised for first time in reply brief are generally not considered); Dakota Indus., Inc. v.

Dakota Sportswear, Inc., 988 F.2d 61, 63 (8th Cir. 1993) (appellate court generally

cannot consider evidence not contained in record below).

Accordingly, we affirm.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.