928 F. 2d 1137 - Steffen v. United Airlines Inc
928 F2d 1137 Steffen v. United Airlines Inc
928 F.2d 1137
Unpublished Disposition
NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel.
Rolf STEFFEN, Plaintiff/counter-defendant/Appellant,
v.
UNITED AIRLINES, INC., a Delaware corporation,
Defendant/counter-plaintiff/Appellee,
No. 89-15710.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Nov. 21, 1990.*
Decided March 22, 1991.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada; No. CV-S-87-0201-HDM, Howard D. McKibben, District Judge, Presiding.
D.Nev.
AFFIRMED.
Before HUG, WILLIAM A. NORRIS and NOONAN, Circuit Judges.
Advertisement
MEMORANDUM**
This is an appeal from a summary judgment in favor of United Airlines based upon a settlement of appellant's wrongful termination claim against United. We affirm.
We review de novo a district court's grant of summary judgment. Board of Trustees of Watsonville Frozen Food Welfare Trust Fund v. California Cooperative Creamery, 877 F.2d 1415, 1419 (9th Cir.1989). We also review de novo a district court's interpretation of state law. Dewhirst v. Citibank (Arizona) (In re Contractors Equipment Supply Co.), 861 F.2d 241, 243 (9th Cir.1988).
The district court correctly invoked the doctrine of apparent authority to estop appellant from challenging the settlement agreement. This doctrine "is in effect an estoppel against [a principal] to deny agency when by his conduct he has clothed the agent with apparent authority to act." Ellis v. Nelson, 68 Nev. 410, 418 (1951).
It is undisputed that for over a year appellant held Mishel out to the world as his lawyer, and gave no notice to the court or to United when he fired him. It is also clear that United acted reasonably in assuming that Mishel had authority to compromise or settle appellant's claim. The Nevada Supreme Court has held, and this court has recognized, that "under Nevada law an attorney is presumed to have authority to settle his client's claim." Waits v. Weller, 653 F.2d 1288, 1290 n. 2 (9th Cir.1981) (citing State of Nevada v. California Mining Co., 15 Nev. 234, 243-44 (1880)). Given this presumption, as well as the undisputed facts that appellant retained Mishel for over a year as his attorney, and never informed United that he had fired Mishel, United was reasonable in relying upon Mishel's apparent authority to settle appellant's claim.
We also reject appellant's claim that the district court erred in holding an evidentiary hearing in the absence of a jury to determine the existence of the settlement agreement. See Adams v. Johns-Manville, 876 F.2d 702, 708 (9th Cir.1989).
United requests fees and/or costs as a sanction against appellant for bringing a frivolous appeal. We hold, however, that appellant's claims were not so meritless to warrant the imposition of sanctions. See Libby, McNeill, and Libby v. City National Bank, 592 F.2d 504, 514-15 (9th Cir.1978).
Advertisement
The district court's judgment is AFFIRMED. Appellee's request for sanctions is DENIED.