Fidelis Johnson Badaiki v. Steve McKenzie, Schlumberger Holdings Corporation
01-20-00778-CV
| Tex. App. | Dec 31, 2024Background
- Fidelis Johnson Badaiki was terminated from Cameron International Corporation in 2016 and later sued Cameron and several related Schlumberger entities and officers for wrongful termination, racial discrimination, retaliation, and hostile work environment in Texas state court in March 2020.
- Badaiki also filed two related federal lawsuits against the same defendants, which were removed to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas.
- The state court dismissed Badaiki's claims with prejudice, awarding defendants costs and attorney’s fees. Badaiki appealed the dismissal.
- During the appeal, the parties entered into an email-based settlement: Badaiki would release all claims in all lawsuits in exchange for defendants foregoing pursuit of attorney’s fees.
- Badaiki later disputed whether there was an enforceable agreement, but the federal district court, and subsequently the Fifth Circuit, found the settlement valid and enforceable, leading to dismissal of the lawsuits as moot.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Enforceability of Settlement Agreement | Settlement emails were not binding | Emails constituted a valid enforceable agreement | Emails formed a valid, binding agreement |
| Mootness of the Appeal | Appeal should continue; settlement invalid | Settlement moots the appeal, negating live controversy | Case is moot, court lacks jurisdiction |
| Trial Court’s Dismissal | Challenged merits of trial court’s order | Dismissal is academic after settlement | No jurisdiction to review merits post-settlement |
| Jurisdiction Post-Settlement | Sought continued court intervention | No live controversy after final resolution | Jurisdiction extinguished by settlement |
Key Cases Cited
- Electric Reliability Council of Tex., Inc. v. Panda Power Generation Infrastructure Fund, 619 S.W.3d 628 (Tex. 2021) (explaining mootness doctrine and its effect on court's jurisdiction).
- State ex rel. Best v. Harper, 562 S.W.3d 1 (Tex. 2018) (court lacks jurisdiction over moot controversies).
- Heckman v. Williamson Cnty., 369 S.W.3d 137 (Tex. 2012) (necessity to dismiss moot cases and vacate prior orders).
- Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Penn, 363 S.W.2d 230 (Tex. 1962) (finality of judgments with unserved defendants).