Alan Honarmand v. J.C. Penney

Eighth Circuit

Alan Honarmand v. J.C. Penney

434 F. App'x 575

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

DecidedOctober 26, 2011

Docket11-1614

StatusUnpublished

This text of 434 F. App'x 575 (Alan Honarmand v. J.C. Penney) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Alan Honarmand v. J.C. Penney, 434 F. App'x 575 (8th Cir. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Alan Honarmand appeals the district court’s 1 orders dismissing his employment-discrimination action as settled, and denying his motion to reconsider based on his claim that his attorney settled the case without authority. Following careful review, we conclude the district court’s finding that Honarmand’s attorney had authority to settle the case was not clearly erroneous. See Mueller v. Guardian Life Ins. Co., 148 F.3d 414, 415-16 (8th Cir. 1998) (holding that court’s factual findings were not clearly erroneous in light of credibility determinations to which appellate court deferred, evidence in record supporting court’s findings, and reasonable inferences drawn by court from evidence); see also Harris v. Ark. State Highway & Transp. Dep’t, 437 F.3d 749, 750-51 (8th Cir.2006) (party who denies that attorney was authorized to enter into settlement bears “heavy burden” to prove that authorization was not given; express authority can be created by, inter alia, written words of principal which cause agent to believe that principal desires him to act in particular manner). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

1

. The Honorable James M. Moody, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

Alan Honarmand appeals the district court’s 1 orders dismissing his employment-discrimination action as settled, and denying his motion to reconsider based on his claim that his attorney settled the case without authority. Following careful review, we conclude the district court’s finding that Honarmand’s attorney had authority to settle the case was not clearly erroneous. See Mueller v. Guardian Life Ins. Co., 148 F.3d 414, 415-16 (8th Cir. 1998) (holding that court’s factual findings were not clearly erroneous in light of credibility determinations to which appellate court deferred, evidence in record supporting court’s findings, and reasonable inferences drawn by court from evidence); see also Harris v. Ark. State Highway & Transp. Dep’t, 437 F.3d 749, 750-51 (8th Cir.2006) (party who denies that attorney was authorized to enter into settlement bears “heavy burden” to prove that authorization was not given; express authority can be created by, inter alia, written words of principal which cause agent to believe that principal desires him to act in particular manner). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

1

. The Honorable James M. Moody, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

434 F. App'x 575, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/alan-honarmand-v-jc-penney-ca8-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack