Madrigal v. Carroll et al

Filing 198

ORDER. The Unopposed Status Report 196 is construed as a motion to reopen this case and is granted. The Motion to Deposit Funds in Court Registry 191 is granted. Within 7 days of entry of this Order, defendants shall deposit $400,000 into the Court registry. Plaintiffs' Motion to Enforce Settlement 189 is denied. Plaintiffs' Unopposed Request to Set Telephone Conference or Hearing 197 is denied as moot. By Judge Philip A. Brimmer on 11/4/15.(pabsec)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge Philip A. Brimmer
Civil Action No. 12-cv-01918-PAB-MJW
MARGARITA MADRIGAL, individually and on behalf of the Estate of Juan Contreras
and as next friend of the minor children,
M.M., a minor child,
R.M.M., a minor child,
J.M., a minor child,
Plaintiffs,
v.
RANDALL CARROLL, individually and as a Police Officer of the City of Aurora,
CRAIG COLLINS, individually and as a Police Officer of the City of Aurora,
KEVIN ROLLINS, individually and as a Police Officer of the City of Aurora,
LELAND SILVER, individually and as a Police Officer of the City of Aurora,
DANIEL J. OATES, as Chief of Police of the City of Aurora, and
CITY of AURORA, COLORADO, a municipal corporation,
Defendants.
_____________________________________________________________________
ORDER
_____________________________________________________________________
This matter is before the Court on (1) plaintiffs’ Unopposed Status Report
[Docket No. 196]; 1 (2) plaintiffs’ Motion to Enforce Settlement [Docket No. 189]; and (3)
the Motion to Deposit Funds in Court Registry [Docket No. 191] filed by defendants
Randall Carroll, Craig Collins, Leland Silver, Kevin Rollins, and the City of Aurora,
Colorado (collectively, “defendants”).
I. BACKGROUND
The following facts are relevant to resolving the motions now before the Court.
1

Although plaintiffs labeled their motion an “Unopposed Status Report,” see
Docket No. 196 at 1, plaintiffs seek through this filing to reopen the case. Accordingly
the Court construes plaintiffs’ filing as a motion to reopen this case.

This matter arose out of the fatal shooting of Juan Contreras by members of the police
department of the City of Aurora, Colorado (the “City”). Docket No. 1 at 2, ¶ 1. On May
2, 2014, following a settlement conference held before Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix,
the parties executed a draft settlement agreement.2 Docket No. 189 at 2, ¶ 1; see also
Docket No. 190-1. The draft settlement agreement provides that “[p]ayment will be
made to the registry of the U.S. District Court, with release of funds to the Plaintiffs and
their counsel only after appointment of a personal representative of the Estate of Juan
Contreras a.k.a. Jose Madrigal, and approval of the settlement by the Probate Court.”
Docket No. 190-1 at 2, ¶ 2. 3 The draft settlement agreement also states that, “[a]fter
appointment of the personal representative of the estate of Juan Contreras a.k.a Jose
Madrigal and appointment of a next friend/guardian for each of the minor children
Plaintiffs, the $400,000 funds will be released from the registry of the Court consistent
with any probate order. . . .” Id. at 2-3, ¶ 5.
On September 25, 2014, the District Court for Arapahoe County, Colorado (the
“probate court”) issued an Order of Intestacy, Determination of Heirs, and Formal

2

The draft settlement agreement contemplates the parties executing a
“Settlement Agreement and Release.” Docket No. 190-1 at 2, ¶ 4. Plaintif fs state that
defendants have refused to execute a final settlement agreement. See Docket No. 189
at 4, ¶ 10. For its part, the City refers in correspondence sent to plaintiffs to a
settlement agreement containing “covenants,” Docket No. 191-3 at 1, and to a
“Settlement Agreement and Release,” id. at 10, although the City does not attach
copies of either. Defendants, however, acknowledge that the draft settlement
agreement is binding. See Docket No. 191 at 2, ¶ 1. Thus, plaintiffs’ motion is properly
understood as a motion to enforce the draft settlement agreement signed on May 2,
2014.
3

Defendants represent that this language was included because the plaintiffs
include minor children and a personal representative for the Estate of Juan Contreras,
who, at the time of the settlement, had not been appointed. Docket No. 194 at 1-2.
2

Appointment of Personal Representative. See Docket No. 189-1. The probate court’s
order appointed plaintiff Margarita Madrigal as the personal representative of the Estate
of Juan Contreras (“the estate”). Id. at 2, ¶ 9. The order named as Mr. Contreras’
heirs Ms. Madrigal, plaintiffs M.M., R.M.M., J.M., and Mr. Contreras’ four adult children,
who are not parties to this action. Id. ¶ 8. Plaintiffs provided notice of the September
25, 2014 order to counsel for the City of Aurora on September 26, 2014. Docket No.
189 at 2, ¶ 4. On June 2, 2015, the probate court approv ed the parties’ settlement as
to the minor children. See Docket Nos. 190-2, 190-3, 190-4.
Plaintiffs state that, despite plaintiffs’ repeated demands, defendants have
refused to deposit the settlement amount in the Court registry. Docket No. 189 at 3-4,
¶ 6. Plaintiffs further state that they have reached a settlement with Mr. Contreras’
adult children, id. at 4, ¶ 7, and that, without the settlement funds being deposited in the
registry of the Court, plaintiffs cannot proceed to a final accounting and cannot pay the
amount due to Mr. Contreras’ adult children. Id. ¶ 8. Plaintiffs ask the Court to enforce
the parties’ draft settlement agreement, to order defendants to deposit $400,000 – the
amount of the settlement – into the Court registry, and to award plaintiffs attorney’s fees
and costs for bringing this motion. Id. at 4-5.
After plaintiffs filed their motion to enforce the settlement agreement, defendants
filed a motion to deposit funds in the Court registry. Docket No. 191. Defendants argue
that their payment obligation has not been triggered because plaintiffs have not
obtained probate court approval of the settlement on behalf of Mr. Contreras’ estate.

3

See Docket No. 194 at 4; see also Docket No. 191 at 4, ¶ 8. 4
II. ANALYSIS
In light of the parties’ settlement, this case was administratively closed on June
30, 2014. Docket No. 187. As such, bef ore the Court can rule on matters related to the
settlement, the Court must first reopen the case. Accordingly, plaintiffs’ unopposed
motion to reopen this case will be granted.
By filing their motion to deposit funds in the Court registry, defendants have
agreed to part of the relief that plaintiffs request in their motion to enforce the
settlement agreement. See Docket No. 189 at 4-5. In order to determine whether
defendants have breached the draft settlement agreement, thereby potentially entitling
plaintiffs to attorneys’ fees and costs as a sanction, it is necessary to interpret the draft
settlement agreement. Paragraph one indicates the amount of money that defendants
will pay to settle plaintiffs’ claims. Docket No. 190-1 at 2. The second paragraph
indicates where such payment will be made, namely, “to the registry of the U.S. District
Court.” Id. However, neither paragraph two nor any other paragraph of the draft
settlement agreement indicates when defendants’ payment is to be made. Paragraph
two does indicate when funds in the registry may be released to plaintiffs – “only after
appointment of a personal representative of the Estate of Juan Contreras a.k.a. Jose
Madrigal, and approval of the settlement by the Probate Court.” Id. The plain meaning
of this paragraph is to place two conditions on the payment of the registry funds to

4

Although defendants dispute that their payment obligation has been triggered,
they state that they wish to deposit the funds in the Court registry “in the interests of
encouraging progress towards final resolution[.]” Docket No. 191 at 4, ¶ 10.
4

plaintiffs: 1) the appointment of a personal representative of the estate of Mr. Contreras
and 2) the probate court’s approval of the draft settlement agreement or the settlement
agreement contemplated by paragraph four.
While paragraph two has a plain meaning, it must be considered in the context of
paragraph five, which states that, “[a]fter appointment of the personal representative of
the estate of Juan Contreras a.k.a. Jose Madrigal and appointment of a next
friend/guardian for each of the minor children Plaintiffs, the $400,000 funds will be
released from the registry of the Court consistent with any probate order, and the
parties will file a Stipulation to Dismiss the City with prejudice.” Id. at 2-3. The plain
meaning of paragraph five is to place two conditions on the release of funds in the
registry: 1) the appointment of a personal representative of the estate of Mr. Contreras
and 2) appointment of a next friend/guardian for each of the minor children plaintiffs.
Therefore, paragraph two and paragraph five have one common condition for release of
the funds (appointment of a personal representative for Mr. Contreras’ estate) and
another condition that is different from the other paragraph (probate court approval of
the settlement versus appointment of next friends/guardians for the minor plaintiffs).
It is not necessary for the Court to resolve the contradictory terms in the draft
settlement agreement as to when the registry funds may be released to plaintiffs. The
relief that plaintiffs seek in the motion is an order for defendants to deposit funds in the
registry, an award of attorneys’ fees and costs for plaintiffs having to file this motion,
and an award of interest. Given that no evidence has been provided that the probate
court has approved the settlement agreement, and given that a condition of
disbursement to plaintiffs that would provide an outside date by which defendants
5

impliedly had to deposit funds into the Court registry has not been fulfilled, defendants
cannot be said to have breached the draft settlement agreement.5 Thus, plaintiffs have
failed to establish their entitlement to sanctions.
III. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, it is
ORDERED that the Unopposed Status Report filed by plaintiffs Margarita
Madrigal, M.M., R.M.M., and J.M. [Docket No. 196] is construed as a m otion to reopen
this case and is GRANTED. It is further
ORDERED that defendants Randall Carroll, Craig Collins, Leland Silver, Kevin
Rollins, and the City of Aurora, Colorado’s Motion to Deposit Funds in Court Registry
[Docket No. 191] is GRANTED. It is further
ORDERED that plaintiffs’ Motion to Enforce Settlement [Docket No. 189] is
DENIED. It is further
ORDERED that, within 7 days of entry of this Order, defendants shall deposit
$400,000 into the Court registry. It is further
ORDERED that plaintiffs’ Unopposed Request to Set Telephone Conference or
Hearing [Docket No. 197] is DENIED as moot.

5

Plaintiffs state that obtaining approval on behalf of the estate will be impossible,
as the probate judge indicated in a hearing that it was not the probate court’s place to
approve the settlement on behalf of the estate and that the probate court would “only
oversee the [e]state pursuant to the intestate laws of the State of Colorado.” Docket
No. 195 at 3. As plaintiffs do not seek disbursement of funds in the instant motion, the
Court does not consider at this time whether plaintiffs are entitled to disbursement given
the probate court’s stated refusal to grant the approval contemplated by the draft
settlement agreement. However, the parties are strongly encouraged to resolve this
issue on their own.
6

DATED November 4, 2015.
BY THE COURT:

s/Philip A. Brimmer
PHILIP A. BRIMMER
United States District Judge

7