Warren Roberts v. Pacific Spine Specialists, 708 F. App'x 328

Dr. Warren Roberts (and his practice) appealed the district court’s enforcement of a settlement that dismissed all claims with no compensation to any party.
On October 17, 2014 Roberts gave his attorney, Mark McDougal, authority to offer a “walkaway” settlement (dismissal without payment); Roberts later abandoned any argument at trial that he had not given that authority.
On October 20, 2014 Roberts emailed McDougal asking to discuss case abatement and saying, “Please do not dismiss case until we have a chance to discuss this,” which Roberts contends revoked McDougal’s settlement authority.
Appellees accepted the walkaway settlement before receiving any communication indicating McDougal’s authority had been revoked.
The district court enforced the settlement; Roberts appealed, arguing revocation of counsel’s authority made the acceptance ineffective.
The Ninth Circuit affirmed, reasoning that even if actual authority had been revoked, McDougal still had apparent authority when Appellees accepted, so the acceptance was valid and a binding settlement was formed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Roberts revoked counsel’s authority before acceptance	The Oct. 20 email revoked McDougal’s authority to settle	McDougal had been authorized on Oct. 17 and no revocation was communicated to appellees	Even if actual authority was revoked, apparent authority remained; acceptance was valid and settlement binding
Whether appellees had a duty to inquire into counsel’s continuing authority	Roberts: Oregon law requires opposing counsel to verify authority in settlement negotiations	Appellees: No duty to re-verify; they could rely on counsel’s prior authority and the offered terms	No duty to investigate; appellees reasonably relied on counsel’s apparent authority when accepting
Applicability of apparent authority to settlement acceptances	Roberts: Revocation should prevent valid acceptance if counsel lost authority	Appellees: Apparent authority protects their acceptance absent notice of revocation	Court applied Restatement (Third) of Agency §3.11; apparent authority persisted until reasonable notice of termination
Whether settlement is enforceable	Roberts: Settlement unenforceable due to revocation before acceptance	Appellees: Settlement enforceable because acceptance occurred before any notice of revocation	Settlement enforceable; judgment enforcing the walkaway affirmed

Galbraith v. Monarch Gold Dredging Co., 84 P.2d 1110 (Or. 1938) (court set aside a confessed judgment where the defendant neither consented nor authorized counsel to enter judgment and the plaintiff knew of the defendant’s objection)