Opinions of the United
2008 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
12-15-2008
Shernoff v. Hewlett Packard Co
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 06-5215
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2008
Recommended Citation
"Shernoff v. Hewlett Packard Co" (2008). 2008 Decisions. Paper 111.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2008/111
This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2008 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.
NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
Nos. 06-5215 and 08-1404
MIA SHERNOFF,
Appellant
v.
HEWLETT PACKARD COMPANY
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
(D.C. Civil No. 04-cv-04390)
District Judge: The Honorable Joel A. Pisano
Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
November 18, 2008
Before: BARRY, CHAGARES, Circuit Judges, and COHILL,* District Judge
(Filed: December 15, 2008 )
OPINION
BARRY, Circuit Judge
Mia Shernoff appeals the judgment entered by the United States District Court for
the District of New Jersey on December 4, 2006. Upon the Report and Recommendation
*
Honorable Maurice B. Cohill, Jr., Senior United States District Judge for the Western
District of Pennsylvania, sitting by designation.
of the Magistrate Judge, the Court granted defendant Hewlett Packard’s (“HP”) motion to
enforce the non-economic terms of a settlement reached at the parties’ conference before
the Magistrate Judge on April 21, 2005, and denied Ms. Shernoff’s cross-motion to
rescind that settlement. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and will
affirm.
I.
We will assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural
history, and so will not recount them here.
The primary issue for our consideration is whether the District Court erred in
enforcing the non-economic terms of an oral settlement agreement that had not yet been
reduced to writing. Where, as here, there has been an evidentiary hearing and explicit
findings of fact have been made, we review the decision to enforce a settlement
agreement for clear error. See Tiernan v. Devoe, 923 F.2d 1024, 1031-32 n.5 (3d Cir.
1991).
Having considered the briefs and appendices, including the transcript of the
evidentiary hearing held on July 27, 2005, we find no basis to upset the findings of fact
and conclusions of law of the Magistrate Judge, which the District Court adopted as its
own in a thorough, well-reasoned opinion. Anna Stathis, Esq., who represented Ms.
Shernoff as local counsel at the settlement conference, testified that the parties had
reached a settlement “subject to looking at the final details.” (A. 71; see also A. 61-62,
2
69-70.) Ms. Shernoff testified that she understood that the settlement was contingent on
her agreement to certain non-economic terms, including the “no re-employment”
provision challenged here. (A. 50-51.) Thus, although the parties did not finalize every
last detail of their agreement, the record contains ample evidence of mutual assent as to
its core terms.2 Accordingly, we conclude that the District Court did not err in enforcing
the settlement.3
II.
We will affirm the judgment of the District Court.
2
We reach our decision mindful of New Jersey’s strong public policy in favor of
settlement. See Puder v. Buechel, 183 N.J. 428, 437-39, 874 A.2d 534 (2005).
3
Ms. Shernoff also appeals the District Court’s order of January 9, 2008 denying her
Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion for relief from its prior order. The two appeals have been
consolidated. Given our disposition of the first appeal, we also will affirm the District
Court’s denial of Ms. Shernoff’s Rule 60(b) motion, which was predicated on supposed
“admissions” by HP in its brief in the first appeal.
3