13‐1398‐cv Pierre v. Chase Investment Services Corp.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT

SUMMARY ORDER

RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT’S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION “SUMMARY ORDER”). A PARTY CITING A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL.

At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 3rd day of April, two thousand fourteen.

PRESENT: RICHARD C. WESLEY, SUSAN L. CARNEY, Circuit Judges, RICHARD K. EATON, Judge.* ______________________

GERTRUDE JEAN PIERRE,

Plaintiff‐Appellant,

‐v.‐ No. 13‐1398‐cv

CHASE INVESTMENT SERVICES CORPORATION,

Defendant‐Appellee,

* The Honorable Judge Richard K. Eaton, of the United States Court of International Trade, sitting by designation.

1 FOR APPELLANT: Stewart Lee Karlin, Law Offices of Stewart Lee Karlin, P.C., New York, NY.

FOR APPELLEE: Frederic L. Lieberman, JPMorgan Chase Legal Department, New York, NY.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of

New York (Shira A. Scheindlin, Judge).

UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED,

ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the judgment is AFFIRMED.

Plaintiff Gertrude Jean Pierre appeals from a February 25, 2013 Opinion

and Order of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New

York (Shira A. Scheindlin, Judge) granting Defendant Chase Investment Services

Corporation’s motion to enforce the parties’ settlement agreement. The

settlement agreement dismissed Plaintiff’s employment discrimination action

against Defendant, brought pursuant to Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq.

Plaintiff seeks reversal of the district court’s order, and argues that the district

court erred in granting Defendant’s motion to enforce the settlement agreed

upon by both parties in open court. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the

underlying facts, the procedural history, and the issues for review.1

1 The district court’s approval of the settlement agreement is reviewed for abuse of discretion. In re September 11 Property Damage Litig.,

(2d Cir. 2011).

2 It is well established that oral settlement agreements entered into by

parties on the record in open court are valid and enforceable. See Powell v.

Omnicom,

(2d Cir. 2007); Ciaramella v. Readerʹs Digest Assʹn, Inc.,

(2d Cir. 1997). Announcing the terms of a settlement agreement

on the record in open court memorializes critical litigation events, and serves a

“cautionary function” ensuring the parties’ acceptance is deliberate. Powell,

. A mere intention to later commit an oral agreement to writing has

no effect on the validity of the contract, even when the agreement is never

reduced to writing. Winston v. Mediafare Entm’t Corp.,

(2d Cir.

1985).

Everything in the record below and briefs before us indicates that the

settlement was agreed to in open court on July 16, 2012 before Magistrate Judge

James L. Cott in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New

York, and is therefore valid and enforceable. The fact that Plaintiff had a change

of heart between the time the oral agreement was made and when it was reduced

to writing has no effect on the validity of the oral settlement. See Powell,

. We need not reconsider the remaining Winston factors addressed by the

3 district court, as there was no abuse of discretion. Similarly, Plaintiff’s argument

that she was fraudulently induced into entering the oral settlement is unavailing.

We have considered all of Plaintiff’s remaining arguments and find them

to be without merit. For the reasons stated above, the judgment of the district

court is AFFIRMED.

FOR THE COURT: Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk

4