Wagshal v. Foster
United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
28 F.3d 1249 (1994)
- Written by Salina Kennedy, JD
Facts
Jerome S. Wagshal (plaintiff) sued Charles E. Sheetz in federal district court. The court referred the case for mandatory, nonbinding arbitration and appointed Mark W. Foster (defendant) to serve as mediator. After the parties’ first mediation session, Wagshal questioned Foster’s neutrality, prompting Foster to establish a deadline for Wagshal to formally object to Foster’s appointment as mediator or to waive his objection. Wagshal ignored the deadline and instead equivocated as to whether he would pursue a formal objection. This prompted Foster to recuse himself from the matter. In his letter informing the judge of his recusal, Foster summarized his efforts in the case and recommended that dispute resolution continue. He emphasized his belief that the matter could be settled if the parties acted reasonably, and he recommended that the court order Wagshal to engage in a good-faith attempt at mediation. The judge later held a hearing with all parties present and excused Foster. Wagshal made no objections, nor did he request that the judge also recuse himself from the matter. A new mediator was appointed, and the case settled. Wagshal sued Foster, arguing that Foster’s conduct during mediation had forced him to settle the case for less than he was entitled to. The district court dismissed Wagshal’s claim, reasoning that Foster was protected by absolute immunity.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Williams, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 815,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.