Stephens v. Jessup et al

Filing 79

Order granting 76 Motion to Enforce Settlement. The terms of the oral settlement agreement shall be enforced as set forth. It is further ordered that this case is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. (hnc)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
HOT SPRINGS DIVISION
DONALD STEPHENS
v.

PLAINTIFF
Case No. 6:13-cv-6011

LESLIE JESSUP

DEFENDANT
ORDER

Before the Court is a Motion to Enforce Settlement filed by Defendant Leslie Jessup. ECF
No. 76. Plaintiff Donald Stephens has responded. ECF. No. 77. This matter is ripe for the Court’s
consideration.
BACKGROUND
This action arises out of an incident in which Plaintiff Donald Stephens was accused of
theft at Oaklawn Jockey Club in Hot Springs, Arkansas, and detained by Defendant Leslie Jessup.
Stephens filed the present action against Jessup, 1 alleging the following causes of action: false
imprisonment, conversion, defamation, violation of civil rights, and intentional infliction of
emotional distress. Jessup claims that the parties reached an oral agreement to settle this matter
but that Stephens refuses to honor the agreement.
Jessup’s counsel, Jim Simpson, asserts that, during a telephone call with Stephens’s
counsel, Maximillan Sprinkle, Simpson offered to settle this lawsuit for $6,000.00. Sprinkle
replied that he needed to speak with Stephens about the offer. On the morning of November 20,

Stephens also named Amtote International, Inc., as a defendant in this action. The Court, however, dismissed
Stephens’s claim against Amtote, and Stephens did not timely appeal that order. See Stephens v. Jessup, 793 F.3d
941, 943 (8th Cir. 2015).

1

2018, Simpson called Sprinkle to inquire about the status of the settlement offer. Sprinkle stated
that Stephens had rejected the offer. In response, Simpson asked if there was a counteroffer, and
Sprinkle stated that it would take $20,000.00 to settle the case. Simpson asked Sprinkle to confirm
that Stephens was making an offer to settle the lawsuit in full for $20,000.00. Sprinkle confirmed,
and Simpson responded “we accept,” apparently arriving at an oral agreement. Simpson and
Sprinkle then discussed settlement documents, and Simpson agreed to draft and file the documents
with the Court.
Later that same day, Sprinkle called Simpson and expressed that Stephens was unhappy
with the settlement and wanted to increase the agreed upon settlement amount. Simpson refused
to increase the settlement amount on behalf of Jessup, and no settlement documents have been
filed with the Court. According to Simpson, Stephens has failed to abide by the terms of the
settlement agreement by refusing to accept the settlement amount and dismiss the case.
LEGAL STANDARD
Basic principles of contract formation govern the existence and enforcement of settlement
agreements. Chaganti & Assoc., P.C. v. Nowotny, 470 F.3d 1215, 1221 (8th Cir. 2006) (citing In
re Airline Ticket Comm’n Antitrust Litig., 268 F.3d 619, 623 (8th Cir. 2001)). “Courts will enforce
contracts of settlement if they are not in contravention of law.” DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Smelser,
289 S.W.3d 466, 470 (Ark. 2008) (citing McCoy Farms, Inc. v. J & M McKee, 563 S.W.2d 409
(1978)). “The essential elements of a contract include (1) competent parties, (2) subject matter,
(3) legal consideration, (4) mutual agreement, and (5) mutual obligations.” Id. (citing Ward v.
Williams, 118 S.W.3d 513, 521 (Ark. 2003)). A court should keep in mind two legal principles
when deciding whether a valid contract was entered into: (1) a court cannot make a contract for
the parties but can only construe and enforce the contract that they have made; and (2) to make a

2

contract there must be a meeting of the minds as to all terms, using objective indicators. Id. (citing
Alltel Corp. v. Sumner, 203 S.W.3d 77, 80 (Ark. 2005)). Further, a party to a voluntary settlement
agreement cannot avoid the agreement simply because the agreement ultimately proves to be
disadvantageous or because he later feels that the amount of the settlement is unsatisfactory.
Worthy v. McKesson Corp., 756 F.2d 1370, 1373 (8th Cir. 1985) (citing Trnka v. Elanco Prods.
Co., 709 F.2d 1223, 1227 (8th Cir.1983)); Rutherford v. Rutherford, 98 S.W.3d 842, 845 (Ark.
App. 2003) (“One party’s displeasure with an agreement that she had previously entered into is no
ground for relief.”).
DISCUSSION
In the present case, Stephens does not dispute the existence or terms of the settlement
agreement. 2 Stephens also does not dispute the facts surrounding the settlement negotiations as
set forth by Jessup. Simpson explicitly asked Sprinkle if Stephens was offering to settle this
lawsuit for $20,000.00. Sprinkle confirmed and Simpson accepted on behalf of Jessup. There is
no dispute that the parties’ attorneys came to a mutual understanding that Stephens would dismiss
this matter for the sum of $20,000.00. 3 Stephens makes no argument and there is no evidence in
the record that any of the essential elements of a contract are missing with respect to the settlement
agreement. Thus, the Court finds that a valid and enforceable oral settlement contract was formed.
It appears that Stephens is attempting to avoid being bound by the oral agreement to settle
and dismiss all claims against Jessup for $20,000.00 because Stephens now believes the sum to be
inadequate. However, as discussed above, this is not a lawful reason for Stephens to avoid the

Stephens filed a response to the instant Motion to Enforce Settlement, but the response does not address the
settlement agreement issue. ECF No. 77. Further, the response does not dispute any of the facts or circumstances
presented by Jessup relating to the formation of the settlement agreement.
3
A client is bound by the actions of his attorney regarding matters which the attorney is employed or held out to be
the spokesman of the client. Barnes v. Barnes, 843 S.W.2d 835, 838 (Ark. 1992).
2

3

agreement. See Visiting Nurse Ass’n, St. Louis v. VNAHealthcare, Inc., 347 F.3d 1052, 1055 (8th
Cir. 2003) (citing Worthy v. McKesson Corp., 756 F.2d 1370, 1373 (8th Cir.1985)) (“[T]he fact
that a party decides after the fact that a contract is not to its liking does not provide a reason to
suppose that a contract was not in fact formed or to release that party from its obligation.”).
Accordingly, the Court finds that the Motion to Enforce Settlement should be granted.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, the Court finds that Defendant Leslie Jessup’s Motion to
Enforce Settlement (ECF No. 76) should be and hereby is GRANTED. The terms of the oral
settlement agreement shall be enforced. Jessup is directed to deliver to Stephens the settlement
check on or before January 11, 2019. It is further ordered that this case is DISMISSED WITH
PREJUDICE. The Court retains jurisdiction to vacate this order and to reopen this action upon
cause shown that the settlement has not been completed and further litigation is necessary.
IT IS SO ORDERED, on this 3rd day of January, 2019.
/s/ Susan O. Hickey
Susan O. Hickey
United States District Judge

4