Brenda Elaine Makins v. District of Columbia

Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the
Federal Reporter or U.S.App.D.C. Reports. Users are requested to notify
the Clerk of any formal errors in order that corrections may be made
before the bound volumes go to press.
United States Court of Appeals
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
Argued September 17, 2001 Decided December 3, 2004
No. 01-7029
BRENDA ELAINE MAKINS,
APPELLANT
v.
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AND FRANCIS J. HENDERSON,
ACTING WARDEN, D.C. D EPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS CENTRAL FACILITY,
APPELLEES
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Columbia
(98cv02693)
Gregory L. Lattimer argued the cause and filed the briefs
for appellant.
Carl J. Schifferle, Assistant Attorney General, argued the
cause for appellees. With him on the brief was Robert J.
Bills of costs must be filed within 14 days after entry of judgment.
The court looks with disfavor upon motions to file bills of costs out
of time.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
Spagnoletti, Attorney General. Edward E. Schwab, Deputy
Attorney General, entered an appearance.
Before: H ENDERSON, RANDOLPH, and ROGERS , Circuit
Judges.
Opinion for the Court filed PER CURIAM.
PER CURIAM: In this appeal from a district court judgment
enforcing a settlement agreement, we certified the following
question to the District of Columbia Court of Appeals:
Under District of Columbia law, is a client bound by
a settlement agreement negotiated by her attorney
when the client has not given the attorney actual
authority to settle the case on those terms but has
authorized the attorney to attend a settlement con-
ference before a magistrate judge and to negotiate
on her behalf and when the attorney leads the
opposing party to believe that the client has agreed
to those terms?
Makins v. Dist. of Columbia, 277 F.3d 544, 553 (D.C. Cir.
2002). The D.C. Court of Appeals, sitting en banc, answered
the question in the negative. Makins v. Dist. of Columbia,
2004 WL 2471504 (Nov. 4, 2004). We must therefore set
aside the district court’s enforcement of the agreement on the
basis of the attorney’s apparent authority. Further proceed-
ings on remand are needed to resolve the remaining eviden-
tiary dispute about the attorney’s actual authority to settle
the case. See 277 F.3d at 545-46.
Vacated and remanded.

-- 2 of 2 --