Case: Brenda Elaine MAKINS, Appellant, v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA and Francis J. Henderson, Acting Warden, D.C. Department of Corrections Central Facility, Appellees
Abbreviation: Makins v. District of Columbia
Decision Date: 2004-12-03
Docket Number: No. 01-7029
Citation: 363 U.S. App. D.C. 471
Volume: 363
Reporter: United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
Jurisdiction: District of Columbia
Parties: Brenda Elaine MAKINS, Appellant, v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA and Francis J. Henderson, Acting Warden, D.C. Department of Corrections Central Facility, Appellees.
Judges: Before: HENDERSON, RANDOLPH, and ROGERS, Circuit Judges.
Pages: 471–472

Head Matter:
389 F.3d 1303
Brenda Elaine MAKINS, Appellant, v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA and Francis J. Henderson, Acting Warden, D.C. Department of Corrections Central Facility, Appellees.
No. 01-7029.
United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.
Argued Sept. 17, 2001.
Decided Dec. 3, 2004.
Gregory L. Lattimer argued the cause and filed the briefs for appellant.
Carl J. Schifferle, Assistant Attorney General, argued the cause for appellees. With him on the brief was Robert J. Spagnoletti, Attorney General. Edward E. Schwab, Deputy Attorney General, entered an appearance.
Before: HENDERSON, RANDOLPH, and ROGERS, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Opinion for the Court filed PER CURIAM.
PER CURIAM:
In this appeal from a district court judgment enforcing a settlement agreement, we certified the following question to the District of Columbia Court of Appeals:
Under District of Columbia law, is a client bound by a settlement agreement negotiated by her attorney when the client has not given the attorney actual authority to settle the case on those terms but has authorized the attorney to attend a settlement conference before a magistrate judge and to negotiate on her behalf and when the attorney leads the opposing party to believe that the client has agreed to those terms?
Makins v. Dist. of Columbia, 277 F.3d 544, 553 (D.C.Cir.2002). The D.C. Court of Appeals, sitting en bam, answered the question in the negative. Makins v. Dist. of Columbia, 861 A.2d 590, 2004 WL 2471504 (Nov. 4, 2004). We must therefore set aside the district court's enforcement of the agreement on the basis of the attorney's apparent authority. Further proceedings on remand are needed to resolve the remaining evidentiary dispute about the attorney's actual authority to settle the case. See 277 F.3d at 545-46.
Vacated and remanded.