Opinion ID: 2788747
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Clearly Erroneous Factual Findings

Text: Finally, Pisarz contends that the District Court erred in its factual findings by “fail[ing] to make certain findings pertaining to undisputed facts.” (Opening Br. at 23 (emphasis omitted).) Specifically, Pisarz argues that the District Court failed to find that (1) neither Siegel nor Kolman fully understood the ramifications of the agreement with PPL on Pisarz’s pension accruals, health insurance, and worker’s compensation; (2) Pisarz’s attorneys did not advise him that accepting the agreement would lead to PPL’s decreasing his worker’s compensation benefits; (3) his worker’s compensation benefits would have increased over time; (4) Pisarz provided undisputed testimony that PPL would pay for his health insurance as long as he was on worker’s compensation; (5) Pisarz continually “chopped and changed” his demands; (6) Kolman advised Pisarz that if he continued being dilatory in signing the agreement PPL may file a motion to compel; (7) the settlement offer required Pisarz to execute various documents; (8) PPL’s letter to the District Court indicated the case was settled subject to the execution of a settlement agreement; (9) PPL’s attorney sent to Kolman a copy of the settlement agreement; and (10) the settlement agreement contained a revocation provision, allowing Pisarz to revoke 9 the settlement agreement up to seven days after he executed it. (Opening Br. at 23-26.) None of those claimed omissions from the District Court’s fact-finding are a basis for the relief Pisarz seeks. The Court’s ruling makes clear that it appreciated that Pisarz continually “chopped and changed” his demands, that PPL’s letter to the District Court indicated the case was settled subject to the execution of a settlement agreement, that PPL’s attorney sent to Kolman a copy of the settlement agreement, and that the settlement agreement contained a revocation provision. Thus, those facts were not omitted, and there is no error, clear or otherwise. Moreover, while the remaining assertions of fact, if true, may reveal something about Pisarz’s view of the quality of Kolman Ely’s work or the wisdom of his continuing to pursue his lawsuit, they are not relevant to whether he gave his express authority to enter into the settlement agreement or to whether his signature was a condition precedent to the agreement. Accordingly, there is no basis to say that the District Court clearly erred in failing to mention legally irrelevant facts, even assuming that they are facts.