Court Opinion

ID: 9911919
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-21 01:02:14.727822+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:58:02.468353
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-20102        Document: 00517008835             Page: 1      Date Filed: 12/20/2023

             United States Court of Appeals
                  for the Fifth Circuit
                                     ____________

                                      No. 23-20102
                                     ____________

   Wilber C. Harris,

                                                                    Plaintiff—Appellant,

                                            versus

   CHI St. Luke’s Health Baylor College of Medicine
   Medical Center, doing business as Baylor St. Luke’s Medical
   Center,

                                               Defendant—Appellee.
                     ______________________________

                     Appeal from the United States District Court
                         for the Southern District of Texas
                              USDC No. 4:19-CV-4293
                     ______________________________

   Before Jolly, Engelhardt, and Douglas, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam:*
         William Harris appeals the district court’s order to enforce a
   settlement agreement with St. Luke’s Medical Center that Harris previously
   authorized in this medical malpractice case. Finding no abuse of discretion,
   we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.

         _____________________
         *
             This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 23-20102      Document: 00517008835           Page: 2     Date Filed: 12/20/2023

                                     No. 23-20102

                                           I.
          Harris filed suit against CHI St. Luke’s Medical Center and Baylor
   College of Medicine for medical malpractice after a draping towel was left in
   Harris’s abdomen during surgery. Baylor quickly settled its portion of the
   case. St. Luke’s and Harris later agreed to settle the rest of the case for
   $85,000.00.     Two days later, however, Harris’s attorney reneged the
   settlement with St. Luke’s because Harris “changed his mind.” Once St.
   Luke’s moved to enforce the settlement, Harris’s attorney filed an affidavit
   stating that the day after settling, Harris informed him that he had not
   authorized the settlement. Following an evidentiary hearing, the district
   court found that Harris’s attorney held settlement authority and that the
   resulting settlement was enforceable. The district court, therefore, enforced
   the settlement agreement. Harris now appeals.
                                          II.
          We review an order enforcing settlement for an abuse of discretion.
   Vikas WSP, Ltd. v. Economy Mud Products Co., 23 F.4th 442, 456 (5th Cir.
   2022). “A district court abuses its discretion if it (1) relies on clearly
   erroneous factual findings; (2) relies on erroneous conclusions of law; or (3)
   misapplies the law to the facts.” In re Volkswagen of Am., Inc., 545 F.3d 304,
   310 (5th Cir. 2008) (en banc). “When enforcing a settlement, a district court
   must make findings of fact and draw conclusions of law.” Vikas WSP, 23
   F.4th at 456 (citing Pearson v. Ecological Sci. Corp., 522 F.2d 171, 176 (5th Cir.
   1975) and FED. R. CIV. P. 52(a)).
                                          III.
          Now on appeal, Harris argues that the district court “summarily
   granted” St. Luke’s motion to enforce settlement and that we should reverse
   the district court because there is a clear factual issue on whether Harris’s
   attorney had the authority to settle. Harris, however, misapprehends our

                                           2
Case: 23-20102      Document: 00517008835          Page: 3    Date Filed: 12/20/2023

                                    No. 23-20102

   standard of review to be de novo, and he fails to argue that the district court
   abused its discretion. Harris instead reasserts that he never authorized his
   attorney to settle this case.
          Nevertheless, the district court made factual findings based on
   evidence presented to it at the evidentiary hearing, correctly stated the law,
   and properly applied the law to the facts here. Specifically, the district court
   found that: (1) the settlement agreement was a proper contract between the
   parties and was, therefore, enforceable; and (2) it lacked “affirmative proof”
   that the Harris’s attorney was not authorized to settle the case. The record
   supports the district court’s factual findings, and the district court
   competently applied the relevant law to these facts. As such, the district
   court did not abuse its discretion. In re Volkswagen of Am., Inc., 545 F.3d at
   310.
                                         IV.
          For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court is
                                                                   AFFIRMED.

                                          3