Tucker v. Mercy Tishomingo Hospital Corp., 060117 FED10, 16-6364
|Court:||United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit|
|Judge Panel:||Before MATHESON, PHILLIPS, and McHUGH, Circuit Judges.|
|Opinion Judge:||CAROLYN B. MCHUGH CIRCUIT JUDGE.|
|Party Name:||SAMUEL TUCKER, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. MERCY TISHOMINGO HOSPITAL CORPORATION, a domestic not for profit corporation, Defendant-Appellee.|
|Case Date:||June 01, 2017|
D.C. No. 5:14-CV-00877-M, W.D. Okla.
Before MATHESON, PHILLIPS, and McHUGH, Circuit Judges.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT [*]
CAROLYN B. MCHUGH CIRCUIT JUDGE.
Samuel Tucker appeals pro se the district court's denial of his motion to vacate a settlement agreement that he executed with Mercy Tishomingo Hospital Corporation ("Mercy"). Exercising jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we affirm.
Tucker filed this action alleging that Mercy terminated his employment in violation of Title VII and the ADEA and also breached his employment contract. After the district court granted summary judgment in favor of Mercy on Tucker's discrimination claims, the parties participated in a mediation. Lyle Clemens served as the mediator, and Tucker and Mercy attended the mediation with their respective counsel, Tony Gould and Nathan Whatley. Consistent with common mediation practice, the parties did not directly negotiate with each other; instead, Clemens positioned them in separate rooms and communicated their settlement offers back and forth.
The mediation culminated in a written settlement agreement providing: "Plaintiff agrees to accept and defendant agrees to pay the sum of [redacted] as full settlement of all his claims in Case # CIV 14-877M. Plaintiff will execute full release and dismissal [with] prejudice." R. at 711. The agreement further stated that it was entered into "without coercion, fraud, duress, undue influence and mistake" and that the parties agreed "to sign all documents necessary to effect a full and final settlement of all claims." R. at 711.
After the parties notified the district court of their settlement, the court administratively closed the case "without prejudice to the rights of the parties to reopen the proceeding for good cause shown, for the entry of any stipulation or order, or for any other purpose required to obtain a final determination of the litigation." R. at 642. The court's order provided further that "[i]f the parties have not reopened this case within 30 days . . . for the purpose of dismissal...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP