Court Opinion

ID: 9651000
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 16:01:05.500408+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:36:11.530968
License: Public Domain

United States Court of Appeals
                            For the Eighth Circuit
                        ___________________________

                                No. 22-3657
                        ___________________________

                               Larisa Dirkzwager

                                     Plaintiff - Appellant

                                        v.

                       Archer-Daniels-Midland Company

                                    Defendant - Appellee
                                 ____________

                     Appeal from United States District Court
                    for the District of North Dakota - Western
                                   ____________

                           Submitted: August 18, 2023
                             Filed: August 23, 2023
                                 [Unpublished]
                                 ____________

Before GRUENDER, BENTON, and STRAS, Circuit Judges.
                          ____________

PER CURIAM.

      North Dakota resident Larisa Dirkzwager appeals the district court’s 1 order
enforcing a settlement agreement and dismissing her employment discrimination
action. Having jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, this court affirms.

      1
        The Honorable Daniel L. Hovland, United States District Judge for the
District of North Dakota.
       Contrary to Dirkzwager’s contention on appeal, the district court had
jurisdiction to enforce the settlement agreement because it had original jurisdiction
over her employment discrimination claims, and the case was still pending. See 28
U.S.C. § 1331 (district courts have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising
under laws of United States); Wilson v. Wilson, 46 F.3d 660, 664 (7th Cir. 1995)
(district court possesses power to enforce settlement agreement in case pending
before it).

       This court concludes that the district court did not clearly err in finding that
the oral agreement reached at the settlement conference was enforceable, that it did
not materially differ from the written agreement, and that Dirkzwager did not
provide a sufficient justification for revoking it. See W. Thrift & Loan Corp. v.
Rucci, 812 F.3d 722, 724-25 (8th Cir. 2016) (standard of review; oral settlement
agreement was enforceable when parties confirmed existence of enforceable
agreement before magistrate judge even though parties did not memorialize it);
Sheng v. Starkey Labs., 117 F.3d 1081, 1083 (8th Cir. 1997) (settlement agreements
that do not expressly resolve ancillary issues can be enforceable; perceiving no clear
error when district court found that settlement did not hinge on tax treatment of
payment or on other particulars); Justine Realty Co. v. American Nat’l Can Co., 976
F.2d 385, 391 (8th Cir. 1992) (“In the absence of mistake or fraud, a settlement
agreement will not be lightly set aside.”). This court declines to consider arguments
that Dirkzwager raises for the first time on appeal. See Shanklin v. Fitzgerald, 397
F.3d 596, 601 (8th Cir. 2005) (“Absent exceptional circumstances, we cannot
consider issues not raised in the district court.”).

      The judgment is affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.
                      ______________________________

                                         -2-