Zaidi v. Dalkon Shield Trust ( 1999 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
In Re: A. H. ROBINS COMPANY,
INCORPORATED,
Debtor.
NASREEN ZAIDI, No. 98-1853
Claimant-Appellant,
v.
DALKON SHIELD CLAIMANTS TRUST,
Trust-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond.
Robert R. Merhige, Jr., Senior District Judge;
Blackwell N. Shelley, Bankruptcy Judge.
(CA-85-1307-R)
Submitted: December 29, 1998
Decided: February 8, 1999
Before WIDENER, HAMILTON, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.
_________________________________________________________________
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
_________________________________________________________________
COUNSEL
Nasreen Zaidi, Appellant Pro Se. Orran Lee Brown, Sr., DALKON
SHIELD CLAIMANTS TRUST, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
_________________________________________________________________
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
Local Rule 36(c).
_________________________________________________________________
OPINION
PER CURIAM:
Nasreen Zaidi appeals the district court's order denying her motion
for relief from a release she signed in connection with her Dalkon
Shield claim. Finding no error, we affirm.
Zaidi elected to resolve her claim under Option 1 of the Claims
Resolution Facility (CRF). Under Option 1, Zaidi was entitled to
compensation of $725. She accepted this payment as"full settlement
and as valuable consideration for the release of all claims . . . arising
out of the use of the Dalkon Shield." On the face of the $725 check
that the Trust issued to Zaidi and that she cashed was written, "Settle-
ment of Dalkon Shield Claim." On the back of the check above the
claimant endorsement signature line was an additional release: "I have
read and executed the release agreement regarding my Dalkon Shield
claim and hereby accept this payment in full and final settlement of
my Dalkon Shield claim and in accordance with the terms of such
release."
Despite her release, Zaidi filed a motion seeking an additional
$25,275 in compensation. She gave no reasons for her demand. The
district court denied the motion. Zaidi appeals.
"The law strongly favors settlement of litigation, and there is a
compelling public interest and policy in upholding and enforcing set-
tlement agreements voluntarily entered into." Hemstreet v. Spiegel,
Inc., 851 F.2d 348, 350 (Fed. Cir. 1988). The parties may not repudi-
ate a valid agreement once it is reached. See id. Because settlement
agreements are considered contracts, see United States v. ITT Conti-
nental Baking Co., 420 U.S. 223, 238 (1975), and contract construc-
tion is a question of law, we review the district court's order de novo.
See Nehi Bottling Co. v. All-American Bottling Corp. , 8 F.3d 157, 162
(4th Cir. 1993).
2
Here, Zaidi agreed to settle her claim for $725. As part of the set-
tlement, she signed a release stating unambiguously that she was
releasing her claim against the Dalkon Shield Claimants Trust. There
was no coercion or material misrepresentation by the Trust. The
release was valid and binding and supported by adequate consider-
ation. We therefore affirm the district court's order.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal conten-
tions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
3