Court Opinion

ID: 9388596
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-21 00:00:36.824271+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:21.220447
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-20501         Document: 00516719767             Page: 1      Date Filed: 04/20/2023

              United States Court of Appeals
                   for the Fifth Circuit                                              United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                               Fifth Circuit

                                                                                             FILED
                                                                                         April 20, 2023
                                        No. 22-20501
                                                                                        Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                                             Clerk
   Kelvin D. Brown,

                                                                    Plaintiff—Appellant,

                                             versus

   NexTier Completion Solutions Incorporated,

                                                                   Defendant—Appellee.

                      Appeal from the United States District Court
                          for the Southern District of Texas
                               USDC No. 4:21-CV-2892

   Before Jolly, Jones, and Ho, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam:*
          Plaintiff-Appellant Kelvin D. Brown appeals the district court’s order
   dismissing his case with prejudice. The dismissal was entered pursuant to his
   signed and executed settlement agreement and release. Because Brown
   voluntarily settled his case, we dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

          *
              This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-20501      Document: 00516719767           Page: 2    Date Filed: 04/20/2023

                                     No. 22-20501

                                          I.
          In March of 2021, Brown brought this action pro se in Texas state
   court. He challenged his employment termination by Defendant-Appellant
   NexTier, claiming race discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act
   of 1964. NexTier removed the case to federal court, asserting federal
   question jurisdiction. Soon thereafter, the parties began protracted
   settlement discussions.
          After several months of negotiations, the parties reached a settlement
   agreement. The settlement agreement provided: (1) that Brown agreed to a
   full and final release of all claims against NexTier; (2) that in exchange for
   Brown’s release, NexTier would pay Brown $30,000; (3) that the agreement
   was executed knowingly and voluntarily by both parties; (4) that Brown made
   the knowing and voluntary choice to proceed pro se; and (5) that the parties
   would stipulate to dismissal of Brown’s claims with prejudice.
          Brown signed and returned the settlement agreement to NexTier.
   NexTier notified the district court of the settlement, and of a joint stipulation
   of dismissal that the parties intended to file. The district court entered an
   order dismissing the lawsuit without prejudice to the right of counsel to move
   for reinstatement of the case within ninety days if the terms of the settlement
   were not fulfilled. NexTier then paid Brown the $30,000 as promised, which
   Brown accepted. Brown, however, refused to stipulate to a dismissal.
   Nevertheless, having found that the settlement agreement resolved the
   dispute between the parties, the district court dismissed Brown’s claims with
   prejudice as fully settled on the merits.
          Brown appealed the dismissal of this case, contending that he did not
   voluntarily execute the settlement agreement and release but did so under
   duress.

                                          2
Case: 22-20501      Document: 00516719767           Page: 3   Date Filed: 04/20/2023

                                     No. 22-20501

                                          II.
          We can dispose of this appeal rather quickly. “Generally[,] settlement
   of a dispute between two parties renders moot any case between them
   growing out of that dispute.” John Doe # 1 v. Veneman, 380 F.3d 807, 814 (5th
   Cir. 2004) (quoting ITT Rayonier Inc. v. United States, 651 F.2d 343, 345 (5th
   Cir. Unit B July 1981)). In the appeal before us, all disputes between the
   parties to the underlying litigation have been settled. NexTier has tendered
   its consideration ($30,000) in exchange for Brown’s release and waiver of all
   claims related to his employment at NexTier. Brown accepted, as
   consideration, the $30,000 payment. Brown, however, failed to honor his
   obligations under the agreement by refusing to stipulate to dismissal.
   Nevertheless, it was within the district court’s inherent power to enforce the
   satisfied settlement agreement by dismissing Brown’s claims. Seattle-First
   Nat’l Bank v. Manges, 900 F.2d 795, 800 (5th Cir. 1990). Accordingly, the
   settlement agreement, including the acceptance of the $30,000 by Brown
   (which has not been returned) ended the dispute and thus this appeal is moot.
   In re S. L. E., Inc., 674 F.2d 359, 364 (5th Cir. 1982).
          To be sure, Brown argues that he did not voluntarily execute the
   settlement agreement, thereby rendering the agreement invalid. But “[e]ven
   if a release is tainted by misrepresentation or duress, it is ratified if the
   releasor retains the consideration after learning that the release is voidable.”
   Williams v. Phillips Petroleum Co., 23 F.3d 930, 937 (5th Cir. 1994). Here, as
   noted, Brown has retained the consideration he received from NexTier.
   Thus, Brown has ratified the release and has no basis to support that the
   settlement agreement was executed involuntarily. See id.; Jarallah v. Sodexo,
   Inc., 452 F. App’x. 465, 468 (5th Cir. 2011) (per curiam).

                                           3
Case: 22-20501     Document: 00516719767           Page: 4   Date Filed: 04/20/2023

                                    No. 22-20501

          As there is no justiciable dispute between the parties to this appeal,
   this court lacks jurisdiction to entertain the appeal. Accordingly, the appeal
   is
                                                                DISMISSED.

                                         4