Normann v. DDRA Arrowhead Crossing LLC

Filing 34

*ORDER AND OPINION For the reasons above, the motion at docket 26 is DENIED. The suspended pretrial deadlines begin running again on the date this order is filed. Signed by Judge John W Sedwick on 6/11/2013.(KMG) *Modified to include text on 6/12/2013 (KMG).

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 David Normann, 10 Plaintiff, 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 vs. DDRA Arrowhead Crossing, LLC, Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 2:12-cv-1963 JWS ORDER AND OPINION [Re: Motion at docket 26] I. MOTION PRESENTED At docket 26, defendant DDRA Arrowhead Crossing, LLC (“DDRA”) asks the court to enforce its settlement agreement with plaintiff David Normann (“Normann”). 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Normann’s response is at docket 30. DDRA’s reply is at docket 31. Oral argument was requested, but it would not assist the court. II. BACKGROUND Normann sued DDRA in September of 2012. His complaint seeks relief pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12181, et seq. and the Arizonans with Disabilities Act, A.R.S. §41-1492. DDRA answered denying liability. An 26 27 28 amended complaint was filed. On March 18, 2013, DDRA answered the amended complaint, again denying liability. Just over two weeks later, on April 3, 2013, DDRA 1 filed the pending motion seeking to enforce a settlement agreement which it claims was 2 reached by the parties. There is no dispute about the fact that the parties entered 3 settlement discussions. However, there is a marked difference of opinion about 4 5 whether a settlement agreement was reached. III. DISCUSSION 6 7 8 9 In order to resolve the issue at hand, it is necessary to march through many of the events which have transpired between counsel in this case. To begin with it is necessary to note that DDRA used both an Arizona law firm, Renaud Cook Drury 10 Mesaros, PA, and a Florida law firm, Baker & Hostetler LLP, in dealing with Normann 11 12 and his lawyer. The Arizona firm is the only one which has appeared in this litigation. 13 The Florida firm, however, provided the draft Settlement Agreement discussed below. 14 A copy of the draft Settlement Agreement along with copies of various communications 15 between representatives of the parties are included in the motion papers. 16 Normann retained an expert who prepared a report concerning the condition of 17 18 the real property which is the subject of this lawsuit. A copy of that report was provided 19 to DDRA. Thereafter, Normann’s lawyer sent an email to DDRA’s counsel–both an 20 Arizona and a Florida lawyer were addressed–dated February 21, 2013, which read in 21 part as follows: 22 24 Please let me know if we should expect some sort of response from your client to our expert report. We presently remain open to a negotiated settlement based on the report – one that includes both barrier removal and payment of Mr. Normann’s fees and costs.1 25 Thereafter, on February 26, the Florida lawyer responded in a letter that was 23 26 27 28 1 Doc. 30-1 at 2. -2- 1 both emailed and mailed to Normann’s counsel along with which the Florida lawyer 2 transmitted the draft Settlement Agreement. In the cover letter, the Florida lawyer 3 explained that the document should be familiar to Normann’s lawyer, because “[t]he 4 5 form is the same [one] we have used in the past.”2 Notably, the draft Settlement 6 Agreement contained a provision which expressly provided for the payment of 7 Normann’s fees and costs.3 The amount of fees and costs was left blank in the draft, 8 so the next day Normann’s lawyer responded in an email stating that he was preparing 9 “a fee and cost demand.”4 On February 28, Normann’s lawyer emailed the Florida 10 lawyer that the attorney fees were of $7,177.08, costs were $4,377.90, and future fees 11 12 and costs were $1,500.00 making for a total demand of $13,054.98.5 That 13 communication also suggested various changes to and excisions from the text of the 14 draft Settlement Agreement. 15 16 17 18 After reviewing the February 28 communication, the Florida lawyer responded on March 8, writing that DDRA agreed to all the suggested changes, except that the amount of attorney fees remained for resolution.6 It appears that the Florida lawyer and 19 Normann’s lawyer also had a telephone conversation on March 8, for in an email dated 20 March 12, Normann’s counsel indicated that in a follow up to a March 8 conversation, 21 22 23 24 2 Doc. 27-1 at p. 1. 3 Id. at p. 4 ¶ 5. 25 4 26 5 27 6 28 Doc. 29-1 at p. 1. Id. at pp. 2-3. Id. at p. 4 (a duplicate also appears at p. 5.) -3- 1 his client would agree to reduce the total for attorney fees and costs to $12,250.7 The 2 email stated that the offer to accept $12,250 would expire on March 14. It also included 3 supporting fee and cost data for examination by the Florida lawyer. The Florida lawyer 4 5 responded on March 12, in an email questioning some of the supporting data and 6 offering to pay $9,100. On March 13, 2013, Normann’s lawyer responded: “To get this 7 done, we will go down to $12,000 as a final offer–together with all other terms 8 previously agreed upon. This offer will expire at the close of business Thursday, March 9 14, 2013.”8 10 In light of the parties’ inability to agree on the fees and costs, the Florida lawyer 11 12 emailed a proposal on March 13 which would rewrite paragraph 5 of the draft 13 Settlement Agreement so that it replaced a statement of the amount of fees and costs 14 with a procedure for determining what the amount would be.9 To this Normann’s lawyer 15 responded the same day: 16 17 18 19 20 No deal. We have not resolved all aspects of the remdial work. As I have repeatedly stated, the deal on the timing of the remedial work was contingent on a comprehensive settlement, including resolution of fees and costs. All aspects must be resolved simultaneously. We will not agree to a two-year barrier removal time frame without resolving fees and costs at the same time.10 Norman’s lawyer also proposed several options to break the log jam on the amount of 21 22 fees and costs which would lower the amount in exchange for shortening the time for 23 24 7 Id. at p. 6 25 8 26 9 27 10 28 Id. at p. 12. Id. at p. 13. Id. at p. 14 -4- 1 barrier removal. The Florida lawyer responded with an email which said he would get 2 back to Normann’s lawyer “one way or another before the deadline you gave me.”11 3 This generated a response from Normann’s lawyer addressed to both the Florida 4 5 lawyer and one of the Arizona lawyers indicating he would deal directly with the Arizona 6 lawyer, because in his view the Florida lawyer had completely overlooked the “no deal” 7 statement in an earlier communication. 8 9 After Normann’s lawyer advised Arizona counsel for DDRA that he wished to get the case moving by way of discovery activity, the Arizona lawyer acknowledged that he 10 had been out of the loop, but upon reviewing the various emails it appeared to him that 11 12 Normann’s lawyer and the Florida lawyer had “agreed on everything except your 13 attorneys’ fees and costs.”12 The court fully agrees with this assessment. The record 14 amply demonstrates that at all times, the parties effort was to settle all issues including 15 the amount of fees and costs to be paid. The record also amply demonstrates that they 16 were unable to reach an agreement. 17 18 To support its position, DDRA first makes a scurrilous attack on Normann’s 19 lawyer pointing out that he has represented Normann in 36 disability act cases in this 20 court. An examination of the court’s records shows that statement to be true, but it is 21 neither relevant nor proper. Those other cases have no bearing on the issue before the 22 court in this case. There is no stigma associated with bringing numerous lawsuits, so 23 long as they do not disclose a pattern of frivolous litigation. No such pattern emerges 24 25 26 11 27 12 28 Id. at p. 15. Id. at p. 18. -5- 1 from the 36 cases, a large majority of which have been settled on terms acceptable to 2 both sides. 3 Seeking to bolster its attempt to paint a picture of Normann’s counsel as a 4 5 litigious scalawag, DDRA points to the decision by Judge Bolton in George v. Arizona 6 Mills, LLC.13 This court has reviewed Judge Bolton’s decision and the docket in that 7 case. Having done, so this court agrees with Normann’s lawyer that the facts in Arizona 8 Mills establish that it is distinguishable and offers no instruction pertinent to the dispute 9 at hand–although this court also finds that Normann’s lawyer is too grudging in 10 11 12 accepting the correctness of Judge Bolton’s decision. DDRA also rummages around in the actions taken by the parties leading up to 13 the preparation of Normann’s expert report. Even if it is true that Normann or his lawyer 14 did not pursue the case in the most efficient or cost-effective manner, that has no 15 bearing on whether or not the parties actually reached a settlement. 16 Next, DDRA asserts that the amount of attorney fees and costs was not a 17 18 material term of the settlement. That may be true in some cases including some cited 19 by DDRA. However, for purposes of deciding what someone will demand by way of a 20 settlement materiality is in the eye of each settling party. Moreover, just how material 21 the amount of fees and costs actually is to both sides in this case is clearly disclosed in 22 the exchanges laid out above. Throughout, Normann has maintained that he wanted a 23 “complete” settlement which necessarily had to include an agreement on fees and 24 25 costs. While the difference between Normann’s lowest offer with respect to fees and 26 27 28 13 Case No. 2:09-cv-0089 SRB (D. Ariz. 2009). -6- 1 costs the highest amount offered by DDRA is not a lot of money, that difference was 2 sufficiently material to DDRA that it walked away from the settlement in order to save a 3 couple of thousand dollars. It may be true that the parties will both now expend 4 5 6 7 8 9 substantially more funds to resolve this dispute, but the fault lies as much with DDRA as with Normann. DDRA also contends that the fee demand is unreasonable. DDRA says Normann demanded payment for future expenses, that his lawyer indulged in excessive billing practices and that some of the costs demanded are not recoverable costs. Even 10 if all that is true, it has no bearing on the question whether the parties reached a 11 12 13 settlement. In its reply DDRA advances several points. DDRA contends first that Normann 14 cannot rely on a course of dealing to help support his position. Even if that is true, 15 which seems somewhat doubtful to the court given the Florida lawyer’s involvement in 16 other disability act cases involving DDRA, it makes no difference. There is no need to 17 18 19 20 resort to a course of dealing here. The undisputed facts reveal there was never an agreed settlement. In its reply DDRA also urges that the February 21 email is not part of the parties 21 negotiations. In all candor, the court cannot conceive how DDRA’s counsel can make 22 that statement. That email plainly represents the first step in the negotiations and lays 23 out quite clearly Normann’s position on what must be in any settlement. 24 25 DDRA also urges that there is no ambiguity in the parties’ settlement 26 negotiations. The court agrees. It is quite clear that Normann was negotiating for a 27 settlement which included his fees and costs and DDRA was unwilling to agree to the 28 -7- 1 2 3 numbers advanced by Normann. Finally, DDRA bemoans the fact that failure to grant the motion to enforce the settlement agreement will allow the case to proceed increasing the cost of the litigation 4 5 significantly and will likely require a hearing to establish what fees and costs Normann 6 will recover. That would be unfortunate, but that certainly happens in many lawsuits. It 7 is no reason to force a “settlement” on a party who never agreed to a settlement. 8 9 IV. CONCLUSION For the reasons above, the motion at docket 26 is DENIED. The suspended pre- 10 11 12 trial deadlines begin running again on the date this order is filed. DATED this 11th day of June 2013. 13 14 15 /S/ JOHN W. SEDWICK UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -8-

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?