Duma v. Unum Provident, 770 F. Supp. 2d 308

Duma filed suit on April 4, 2008 seeking ERISA disability benefits from Unum Provident and additional relief against Fannie Mae and others.
Judge Robertson dismissed most claims on May 4, 2009, preserving only ERISA claim against Unum Provident and Title VII claim against Fannie Mae.
Settlement negotiations led to a Sept. 4, 2009 Settlement Agreement and Release paying $10,000, with a corresponding stipulation of dismissal stating the action was dismissed with prejudice as to Unum Provident only.
Plaintiff deposited the settlement check on Sept. 8, 2009, and the case moved toward final dismissal of the remaining claims.
On May 29, 2010, Judge Robertson entered the final order dismissing the remaining Title VII claim against Fannie Mae; plaintiff appealed, and the next day moved to rescind or reform the dismissal of Unum Provident.
The court analyzed the motion as a Rule 59(e) challenge to the May 29, 2010 final order, and denied the motion.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Proper basis for plaintiff's motion	Duma contends Rule 60(b) should apply due to undisclosed conflict and duress.	Unum asserts Rule 60(b) or time limits bar relief; but also argues settlement forecloses claims.	Motion analyzed as Rule 59(e); timely and denied.
Effectiveness of the Stipulation of Dismissal	Dismissal with prejudice as to Unum Provident may have been improvidently entered.	Stipulation governed by Rule 41(a)(2) and not final until Judge approved final order.	Dismissal against Unum Provident became final in May 2010; relief denied.
Conflict of interest and disclosure	Hogan & Hartson failed to disclose a familial link that created conflict of interest.	Affidavits show no involvement by the related attorney; conflict not imputed to firm.	No disqualifying conflict; claim rejected.
Duress and signing of Settlement Agreement	Notary coercion prevented reading; duress invalidated the agreement.	Plaintiff read and signed; accepted settlement benefits, ratifying contract.	No duress; ratification via acceptance of benefits; claim denied.
With-prejudice language interpretation	Plaintiff did not authorize a with-prejudice dismissal of Unum Provident.	Settlement language and release imply finality and broad release of claims.	Settlement interpreted as a full release; with-prejudice dismissal supported.

In re Wolf, 842 F.2d 464 (D.C.Cir. 1988) (entry of stipulation of dismissal under Rule 41(a)(1) is automatic; different when Rule 41(a)(2) applies)
MDB Communications, Inc. v. Hartford Cas. Ins. Co., 531 F. Supp. 2d 75 (D.D.C. 2008) (Rule 59(e) relief requires extraordinary circumstances)
Niedermeier v. Office of Max S. Baucus, 153 F. Supp. 2d 23 (D.D.C. 2001) (standard for Rule 59(e) relief: correction of clear error or manifest injustice)
Schmidt v. Shah, 696 F. Supp. 2d 44 (D.D.C. 2010) (duress analysis and contract ratification by acceptance of benefits)
Johnson v. Penn Camera Exch., 583 F. Supp. 2d 81 (D.D.C. 2008) (duress or coercion aspects in contract reform/rule relief context)
Wright v. Foreign Serv. Grievance Bd., 503 F. Supp. 2d 163 (D.D.C. 2007) (ratification and acceptance of contract benefits can bar duress defenses)
Healey v. Labgold, 271 F. Supp. 2d 303 (D.D.C. 2003) (settlements with prejudice common in settlements)
Independent Petroleum Ass'n of America v. Babbitt, 178 F.R.D. 323 (D.D.C. 1998) (discretionary standards for relief from judgments)
Dyer v. Bilaal, 983 A.2d 349 (D.C. 2009) (duress definitions and wrongful threats in contract formation)
Goldstein v. S & A Rest. Corp., 622 F. Supp. 139 (D.D.C. 1985) (ratification effect of accepting contract benefits)