Case Explained: United States of America Plaintiff— v. Dongxin Ma; Ma Acupuncture Center, P.C Defendants—

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Filed: 2026-06-15 The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s order enforcing a settlement agreement reached during mediation in a False Claims Act lawsuit brought by the United States against Dr. Dongxin Ma and Ma Acupuncture Center, P.C. The appellate court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in determining that the parties had reached a binding oral agreement on all material terms at mediation, despite the defendants’ later contention that they had not agreed to the final terms or that their counsel lacked authority to settle. The court applied federal contract law principles, reviewing the district court’s factual findings for clear error and its legal conclusions for abuse of discretion. The court established that a settlement agreement is enforceable if it contains all material terms, which generally include the monetary amount of payment and the release of specific claims; additional “standard and customary” terms in a subsequent written draft do not render an oral agreement unenforceable if they are immaterial. The court found that the parties had agreed on the $2.3 million settlement amount, the 42-month payment schedule, the initial payment, the method of payment via property sale, and the release of civil claims. Furthermore, the court determined that the oral agreement was final and binding based on objective evidence, including the parties’ handshake at mediation, the mediator’s summary form, and the defendants’ failure to object to the notice of settlement for two months. The court also ruled that the defendants forfeited arguments regarding their counsel’s specific authority to settle and an anticipatory repudiation claim because these issues were not raised in their opening brief or prior to the district court’s final judgment. The practical consequence is that the settlement agreement reached at mediation remains enforceable, requiring the defendants to pay the government $2.3 million over 42 months as originally agreed, with the case dismissed and civil claims released upon payment. The appeal was denied, and the lower court’s enforcement order stands. Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.