Russell v. Puget Sound Tug & Barge Co., 83-4268
| Decision Date | 20 July 1984 |
| Docket Number | No. 83-4268,83-4268 |
| Parties | Winston A. RUSSELL, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. PUGET SOUND TUG & BARGE CO., Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
William F. Dippolito, Tacoma, Wash., for plaintiff-appellee.
Mark Edwin Johnson, Lane, Powell, Moss & Miller, Seattle, Wash., for defendant-appellant.
United States District Court for the Western District of Washington.
Before ANDERSON, POOLE and NELSON, Circuit Judges.
Defendant appeals from an order of the district court entering judgment on a disputed settlement agreement. Because the district court erred in failing to hold an evidentiary hearing on defendant's challenge to the settlement agreement, we reverse.
On August 24, 1982, while working as a seaman aboard a tug owned by defendants, plaintiff Russell was struck in the left arm by a "pee-vee," or wooden lever. Russell sued under the Jones Act, 46 U.S.C. Sec. 688, claiming that his injured arm disabled him as a seaman. At his deposition, Russell stated that he could not straighten his left arm and had difficulty lifting objects. He made similar statements to medical and vocational experts hired by defendant, and at a later conference with defendant's attorneys claimed that his activity was so limited that even getting dressed caused him pain.
On September 16, 1983, the parties agreed to settle Russell's claim for $275,000.
Within the following week, private investigators who had been hired by defendant to observe Russell and who were not notified of the settlement agreement, "noted substantial increase in [Russell's] use of his left arm". Motion pictures were taken of Russell lifting various sorts of building materials. On viewing these films, defendants' medical and vocational experts stated that they would revise their opinions of Russell's disability.
On October 17, 1983, defendant moved for recission of the settlement agreement and asked the district court to hold an evidentiary hearing at which it might present, among other things, the new motion picture evidence. The district court, without holding a hearing, denied the motion and entered judgment for plaintiff.
The denial of appellant's motion without a hearing was an abuse of the district court's discretion. Summary enforcement of a settlement agreement "is ill-suited to situations presenting complex factual issues related either to the formation or the consummation of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hisel v. Upchurch, CIV 89-1666-PHX-EHC (MM).
...an evidentiary hearing. Petty v. Timken Corp., 849 F.2d 130, 132 (4th Cir.1988); Callie, 829 F.2d at 890; Russell v. Puget Sound Tug & Barge Co., 737 F.2d 1510, 1511 (9th Cir.1984). Within the purview of this rule, Cello-Whitney seeks an evidentiary The issue presented squarely to this Cour......
-
Petition of Mal de Mer Fisheries, Inc., Civ. A. No. 94-10211-PBS.
...an evidentiary hearing where intent of the parties and material terms of the agreement were in dispute); Russell v. Puget Sound Tug & Barge Co., 737 F.2d 1510, 1511 (9th Cir.1984) ("Summary enforcement of a settlement agreement `is ill-suited to situations presenting complex factual issues ......
-
Corrugated Container Antitrust Litigation, In re
...United States v. City of Miami, Florida, 664 F.2d 435, 439 (5th Cir.1981) (en banc) (Rubin, J., concurring).15 Russell v. Puget Sound Tug & Barge Co., 737 F.2d 1510 (9th Cir.1984), quoting Autera v. Robinson, 419 F.2d 1197, 1200 (D.C.Cir.1969). See also Millner v. Norfolk & W.R. Co., 643 F.......
-
Rohm and Haas Co. v. Dawson Chemical Co.
...and Haas decision precluded an award of damages in favor of Rohm and Haas against Thompson-Hayward. 21 See Russell v. Puget Sound Tug & Barge Co., 737 F.2d 1510 (9th Cir.1984), quoting Autera v. Robinson, 419 F.2d 1197, 1200 (D.C.Cir.1969); Kukla v. National Distillers Products Company, 483......