Grice v. St James Parish ( 2001 )

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-30160
Summary Calendar
JOSEPH GRICE; STANLEY JOHNSON; ENOLA LASSERE; JOHN LUCAS, SR;
KEVIN M PHILLIPS; ALVIN ROUSSELL; SAMUEL TURNER,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
VERSUS
ST JAMES PARISH; ELWYN BOCZ; TIMOTHY ROUSSEL; ERIC POCHE; RALPH A
PATIN, JR; OLIVER COOPER, SR; ELTON AUBERT; JAMES BRAZAN; and
JODY CHENIER,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
For the Eastern District of Louisiana, New Orleans Division
(98-CV-2849-F)
April 18, 2001
Before EMILIO M. GARZA, STEWART, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Appellants argue that the magistrate judge erred by concluding
that their former attorney had actual authority to settle their
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this
opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under
the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
1
Title VII claims. During a bench trial, the Appellants’ former
attorney testified that she received a settlement offer from the
defendants on August 12, 1999 and obtained actual authority to
accept the defendants’ offer through telephone conversations with
each plaintiff on the same day. The Appellants testified that they
did not give their attorney permission to settle over the
telephone. They claimed that they met as a group with the attorney
on August 12, at which time they expressed their dissatisfaction
with the offer. Appellants testified that their attorney never had
authority to settle the case.
In his Order and Reasons, the magistrate judge found that the
evidence supported the attorney’s version of the events. The judge
concluded that the attorney had actual authority to settle the case
on August 12, 1999. Once the attorney accepted the offer, the
litigants were bound by the oral settlement agreement. See Noble
Drilling, Inc. v. Davis, 64 F.3d 191, 195 (5th Cir. 1995) (citing
Strange v. Gulf & South American Steamship Co., 495 F.2d 1235 (5th
Cir. 1974).
Appellants’ only argument on appeal is that the trial court
erred by accepting the attorney’s testimony rather than their
perception of the events. We review the magistrate judge’s factual
findings for clear error. See Lockette v. Greyhound Lines, Inc.,
817 F.2d 1182, 1185 (1987). In cases where the plausibility of a
witness’s testimony is questioned on appeal, we defer to the trial
2
court’s credibility assessment. See Canal Barge Co., Inc. v. Torco
Oil Co., 220 F.3d 370, 375 (5th Cir. 2000). “We are reluctant to
set aside findings that are based upon a trial judge’s
determination of the credibility of witnesses giving contradictory
accounts.” Id.After reviewing the testimony and evidence admitted at trial,
we find the magistrate judge did not clearly err in adopting the
attorney’s version of the facts over the Appellants’. The judgment
enforcing the settlement agreement is therefore affirmed.
AFFIRMED
3