The opinion
Case: 22-20501 Document: 00516719767 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/20/2023
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
April 20, 2023
No. 22-20501
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
Kelvin D. Brown,
Plaintiff—Appellant,
versus
NexTier Completion Solutions Incorporated,
Defendant—Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:21-CV-2892
Before Jolly, Jones, and Ho, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Plaintiff-Appellant Kelvin D. Brown appeals the district court’s order
dismissing his case with prejudice. The dismissal was entered pursuant to his
signed and executed settlement agreement and release. Because Brown
voluntarily settled his case, we dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
*
This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-20501 Document: 00516719767 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/20/2023
No. 22-20501
I.
In March of 2021, Brown brought this action pro se in Texas state
court. He challenged his employment termination by Defendant-Appellant
NexTier, claiming race discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act
of 1964. NexTier removed the case to federal court, asserting federal
question jurisdiction. Soon thereafter, the parties began protracted
settlement discussions.
After several months of negotiations, the parties reached a settlement
agreement. The settlement agreement provided: (1) that Brown agreed to a
full and final release of all claims against NexTier; (2) that in exchange for
Brown’s release, NexTier would pay Brown $30,000; (3) that the agreement
was executed knowingly and voluntarily by both parties; (4) that Brown made
the knowing and voluntary choice to proceed pro se; and (5) that the parties
would stipulate to dismissal of Brown’s claims with prejudice.
Brown signed and returned the settlement agreement to NexTier.
NexTier notified the district court of the settlement, and of a joint stipulation
of dismissal that the parties intended to file. The district court entered an
order dismissing the lawsuit without prejudice to the right of counsel to move
for reinstatement of the case within ninety days if the terms of the settlement
were not fulfilled. NexTier then paid Brown the $30,000 as promised, which
Brown accepted. Brown, however, refused to stipulate to a dismissal.
Nevertheless, having found that the settlement agreement resolved the
dispute between the parties, the district court dismissed Brown’s claims with
prejudice as fully settled on the merits.
Brown appealed the dismissal of this case, contending that he did not
voluntarily execute the settlement agreement and release but did so under
duress.
2
Case: 22-20501 Document: 00516719767 Page: 3 Date Filed: 04/20/2023
No. 22-20501
II.
We can dispose of this appeal rather quickly. “Generally[,] settlement
of a dispute between two parties renders moot any case between them
growing out of that dispute.” John Doe # 1 v. Veneman, 380 F.3d 807, 814 (5th
Cir. 2004) (quoting ITT Rayonier Inc. v. United States, 651 F.2d 343, 345 (5th
Cir. Unit B July 1981)). In the appeal before us, all disputes between the
parties to the underlying litigation have been settled. NexTier has tendered
its consideration ($30,000) in exchange for Brown’s release and waiver of all
claims related to his employment at NexTier. Brown accepted, as
consideration, the $30,000 payment. Brown, however, failed to honor his
obligations under the agreement by refusing to stipulate to dismissal.
Nevertheless, it was within the district court’s inherent power to enforce the
satisfied settlement agreement by dismissing Brown’s claims. Seattle-First
Nat’l Bank v. Manges, 900 F.2d 795, 800 (5th Cir. 1990). Accordingly, the
settlement agreement, including the acceptance of the $30,000 by Brown
(which has not been returned) ended the dispute and thus this appeal is moot.
In re S. L. E., Inc., 674 F.2d 359, 364 (5th Cir. 1982).
To be sure, Brown argues that he did not voluntarily execute the
settlement agreement, thereby rendering the agreement invalid. But “[e]ven
if a release is tainted by misrepresentation or duress, it is ratified if the
releasor retains the consideration after learning that the release is voidable.”
Williams v. Phillips Petroleum Co., 23 F.3d 930, 937 (5th Cir. 1994). Here, as
noted, Brown has retained the consideration he received from NexTier.
Thus, Brown has ratified the release and has no basis to support that the
settlement agreement was executed involuntarily. See id.; Jarallah v. Sodexo,
Inc., 452 F. App’x. 465, 468 (5th Cir. 2011) (per curiam).
3
Case: 22-20501 Document: 00516719767 Page: 4 Date Filed: 04/20/2023
No. 22-20501
As there is no justiciable dispute between the parties to this appeal,
this court lacks jurisdiction to entertain the appeal. Accordingly, the appeal
is
DISMISSED.
4