Walters v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
703 F.3d 1167
| 10th Cir. | 2013Background
- Walters sued Wal-Mart for employment discrimination based on race, age, disability, and gender.
- Magistrate judge-led settlement conference produced a document titled Settlement Terms and a plan to draft a final formal agreement.
- Wal-Mart altered terms and Walters signed Settlement Terms but refused to sign the final agreement within twenty days.
- District court dismissed the case without prejudice and set thirty days to submit closing papers; Wal-Mart moved to enforce the settlement and seek fees.
- Walters later moved to reconsider; the district court denied; Walters appealed both the enforcement and reconsideration rulings.
- The district court did not enter a separate judgment, raising a Rule 58(a)/58(c) jurisdictional issue resolved by the panel; timing affected appeal rights.
- Walters pursued the appeal pro se since April 2011; Wal-Mart sought sanctions for the motion to enforce.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jurisdiction when judgment not entered separately | Walters should have extended appeal time under Rule 58(c) | Minute Sheet cannot substitute for a separate judgment | Appeal timely; jurisdiction preserved despite no separate judgment entry |
| Whether district court properly enforced the Settlement Terms | There was no valid assent due to alleged misrepresentation and lack of mutual assent | Settlement Terms created a binding contract; no duress; proper enforcement | District court properly enforced the settlement |
| Duress/misrepresentation at settlement conference | Attorneys misled Walters about benefits and pressure to sign | Record shows no evidence of duress; magistrate advised Walters | No basis to reverse for duress; consent not product of duress |
| OWBPA applicability to time to consider and waiver validity | Twenty-one day period required under OWBPA for knowing waiver | OWBPA provision does not apply to court-action settlement; issues waived for lack of challenge | OWBPATwenty-one-day period not applicable; waiver issues waived and not reducible to knowability |
| Reconsideration denial affirmed; no error shown | Denial of reconsideration reversibly incorrect | No clear misapprehension of facts or law | denial of motion to reconsider affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- ABF Capital Corp. v. Osley, 414 F.3d 1061 (9th Cir. 2005) (constructive-entry rule; appeal not required before entry of judgment)
- Thompson v. Gibson, 289 F.3d 1218 (10th Cir. 2002) (Rule 58 interpretation to preserve appeal)
- In re Taumoepeau, 523 F.3d 1213 (10th Cir. 2008) (separate-document rule interpreted to preserve appeal)
- Clough v. Rush, 959 F.2d 182 (10th Cir. 1992) (waiver of separate-document rule cannot defeat jurisdiction)
- Bankers Trust Co. v. Mallis, 435 U.S. 381 (1978) (separate-document rule intended to prevent loss of appeal)
- Silver Star Enters. v. M/V Saramacca, 19 F.3d 1008 (5th Cir. 1994) (unsigned minute sheet not a separate judgment)