Walker v. Health International Corporation, et al

Filing 180

ORDER Defendants Motion for Dismissal ECF No. 168 is GRANTED, and this matter is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE pursuant to the parties stipulation and Mediated Settlement Agreement; Pursuant to the Courts equitable powers, Defendants are awarded reaso nable attorneys fees and costs resulting from Plaintiffs vexatious actions after the filing of the Notice of Settlement (CF No. 140 , and Defendants shall file documentation supporting the amounts r equested on or before August 29, 2014; and The remaining motions pending in this case ECF Nos. 103 , 118 , 144 , 147 , 154 , 163 , 165 , 166 , 167 are DENIED AS MOOT, by Judge William J. Martinez on 8/4/2014.(evana, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge William J. Martínez
Civil Case No. 12-cv-3256-WJM-KLM
ANDRE WALKER,
Plaintiff,
v.
HEALTH INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION, a Florida corporation,
HSN, INC., a Delaware corporation, and
HSN INTERACTIVE LLC, a Delaware corporation,
Defendants.

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR DISMISSAL

This matter comes before the Court on eight pending motions (ECF Nos. 144,
147, 154, 163, 165, 166, 167, 168) filed after a mediation was held between Plaintiff
Andre Walker (“Plaintiff”) and Defendants Health International Corporation, HSN, Inc.,
and HSN Interactive, LLC (collectively “Defendants”). Among these motions is
Defendants’ Motion for Entry of Order of Dismissal With Prejudice (“Motion for
Dismissal”). (ECF No. 168.) For the reasons set forth below, the Motion for Dismissal
is granted.
I. BACKGROUND
A private mediation was held in this case on May 6, 2014, resulting in a Mediated
Settlement Agreement (“Agreement”) between all parties. (ECF No. 145.) Among
other conditions, the Agreement required a payment to be made within 30 days of the
date of the Agreement, after which “Plaintiff will deliver a release to [Defendants], and
by joint stipulation the parties to this agreement shall dismiss all claims between them

with prejudice.” (Id. ¶ 5.)
On May 9, 2014, Defendants filed a Notice of Settlement and Motion to Stay
Deadlines. (ECF No. 140.) The parties then began a litany of filings which revealed a
disagreement as to the scope and effect of the Agreement. On the same day, Plaintiff
filed a Notice to Court (ECF No. 141) indicating that he disagreed with Defendants’
position that the Agreement “resolves all claims asserted between the parties”. Instead,
Plaintiff contended that “there are significant issues that remain to be resolved, and
which may require the filing of an amended complaint.” (Id.)
Given this disagreement, the Court denied Defendants’ Motion to Stay
Deadlines. (ECF No. 142.) In response, on May 12, 2014, Defendants filed a Motion
for Leave to Restrict, in which they moved to file the Agreement as a restricted
document due to a confidentiality provision, and requested reconsideration of the denial
of the Motion to Stay Deadlines in view of the contents of the Agreement. (ECF No.
144.) The Agreement was filed as a restricted document for the Court’s review. (ECF
No. 145.)
On May 13, 2014, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Leave to File Third Amended
Complaint (“Motion to Amend”), in which Plaintiff sought to add three new claims
against Defendants. (ECF No. 147.) Defendants opposed Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend
based on their contention that all claims between the parties had been resolved via the
Agreement. (ECF No. 152.) On May 29, 2014, Defendants filed a Motion to Enforce
Mediated Settlement Agreement (“Motion to Enforce”), requesting an order enforcing
the Agreement and awarding costs and attorneys’ fees pursuant to the Court’s
equitable powers. (ECF No. 163.) Plaintiff opposed Defendants’ Motion to Enforce,
2

asserting that “the parties still have to agree on the terms of dismissal.” (ECF No. 164.)
On June 13, 2014, Plaintiff filed a Motion for (1) Order Regarding Defendants’
Request for Attorney Fees and (2) Entry of Proposed Order of Dismissal (“Motion for
Order”). (ECF No. 165.) Plaintiff Motion for Order asked the Court to deny Defendants’
request for attorneys’ fees in the Motion to Enforce, and attached a proposed Order of
Dismissal in order to “carr[y] out the intent of the Agreement.” (Id.) Within Plaintiff’s
Motion for Order, he stated that an issue requiring resolution prior to dismissal involved
Defendants’ refusal to produce certain documents that Plaintiff had requested prior to
the mediation, and that Defendants had previously agreed to produce. (Id. at 2.)
On June 16, 2014, Defendants filed a Motion for Sanctions pursuant to Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 11. (ECF No. 166.) In the Motion for Sanctions, Defendants
requested an award of attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in being required to continue
the litigation after the parties had entered into the Agreement. (Id.) On the same day,
Defendants filed a Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s Motion for Order Regarding Defendants’
Request for Attorney Fees. (ECF No. 167.) Defendants alleged that, while conferring
with Plaintiff regarding the filing of a joint stipulation for dismissal, the parties had
reached an agreement as to all issues except Defendants’ request for attorneys’ fees,
when Plaintiff abruptly filed his Motion for Order requesting that the Court deny
Defendants’ fee request. (Id. at 3.) Defendants then filed the Motion for Dismissal,
requesting the entry of an order dismissing all claims and retaining jurisdiction to
consider Defendants’ requests for attorneys’ fees and sanctions. (ECF No. 168.)
Plaintiff filed no response to the Motion for Dismissal.
As a result of the multiplicative motions and the varying positions put forth by the
3

parties, the Court referred this case to U.S. Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix for a Status
Conference. (ECF No. 169.) The Status Conference was held on July 2, 2014, in
which the parties agreed that the case should be dismissed, but disagreed on various
conditions of dismissal. (ECF No. 177.) Plaintiff requested the production of the
documents he had referred to in his Motion for Order (ECF No. 165), while Defendants
requested an award of attorneys’ fees and sanctions as set forth in the Motion for
Leave to Restrict and Motion for Sanctions (ECF Nos. 163 & 166). (ECF No. 177.)
II. DISCUSSION
The Court has reviewed the Agreement and finds that it is a settlement
agreement which resolves all claims between the parties. The Agreement is captioned
with the instant case name and number and states that, after completion of an initial
condition, “Plaintiff will deliver a release to [Defendants], and by joint stipulation the
parties to this agreement shall dismiss all claims between them with prejudice.” (ECF
No. 145 ¶ 5.) The initial condition was a payment of a specified amount within 30 days,
which was timely satisfied. (See ECF No. 165 at 3 n.3.) Several subsequent conditions
will not come due until June 1, 2015 at the earliest. (ECF No. 145 ¶ 2.) Plaintiff has
already delivered a General Release to Defendants pursuant to the Agreement. (See
ECF No. 166 at 2 n.2.) Despite Plaintiff’s prior statements that the litigation should
continue because the Agreement did not resolve all claims between the parties, per
counsel’s oral representations at the July 2, 2014 Status Conference, both parties now
stipulate that the matter should be dismissed. (ECF No. 177.)
“A trial court has the power to summarily enforce a settlement agreement

4

entered into by the litigants while the litigation is pending before it.” United States v.
Hardage, 982 F.2d 1491, 1496 (10th Cir. 1993). Under the plain language of the
Agreement, the conditions precedent to dismissal have been satisfied, and the parties
have now stipulated to “dismiss all claims between them with prejudice.” (ECF No.
145.) Therefore, pursuant to the Agreement, dismissal of this action is appropriate, and
the Motion for Dismissal is granted.
Thus, the only issue remaining is whether Defendants should be awarded
attorneys’ fees for Plaintiff’s post-mediation conduct. A court may award attorneys’ fees
and costs in its discretion pursuant to its equitable powers when a litigant has acted “‘in
bad faith, vexatiously, wantonly, or for oppressive reasons.’” Ryan v. Hatfield, 578 F.2d
275, 277 (10th Cir. 1978) (quoting Hall v. Cole, 412 U.S. 1, 4-5 (1973)). In this case,
the parties’ current stipulation with respect to dismissal represents a dramatic change in
Plaintiff’s position since his initial post-mediation filings. Plaintiff initially opposed
Defendants’ Notice of Settlement and Motion to Stay Deadlines, and moved to file a
Third Amended Complaint to add claims against Defendants. (ECF Nos. 141 & 147.)
These are not positions that are consistent with a settlement agreement that resolves
“all claims between” the parties, as does the instant Agreement.
Plaintiff now contends that his proposed Third Amended Complaint was intended
only to “provide a clear record of all of the claims that could have been asserted, and
were not asserted in the current pleadings.” (ECF No. 176 at 9.) This argument
appears disingenuous given Plaintiff’s initial post-mediation assertions that he sought to
raise claims that were not resolved by the Agreement. (See ECF Nos. 141 & 147.)
Even if Plaintiff earnestly chose to pursue this strategy solely to enumerate the possible
5

claims on the record, such a strategy was utterly unnecessary given the blanket
language in the Agreement that it would resolve all claims between the parties. (See
ECF No. 145 ¶ 5.) Further, this strategy does not explain Plaintiff’s opposition to
Defendants’ Motion to Stay Deadlines (ECF No. 141) or Motion for Leave to Restrict
(ECF No. 158). Nor does it explain why Plaintiff filed his Motion for Order (ECF No.
165) asking the Court to deny Defendants’ request for attorneys’ fees when his position
was clearly set forth in his Response to Defendants’ Motion to Enforce (ECF No. 164).
The Court finds that Plaintiff’s actions have unnecessarily multiplied the
proceedings at a time when the underlying claims have admittedly been resolved.
These actions are not supported by any justifiable litigation strategy, particularly given
Plaintiff’s current position that the case should be dismissed. Plaintiff has wasted the
time and resources of both this Court and the Parties. The Court finds that Plaintiff’s
vexatious actions fall within the enumerated exceptional circumstances permitting an
award of attorneys’ fees. See Ryan, 578 F.2d at 277. Accordingly, the Court finds it
appropriate to award to Defendants their reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs incurred
after the filing of the initial Notice of Settlement (ECF No. 140).
III. CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, the Court hereby ORDERS as follows:
1.

Defendants’ Motion for Dismissal (ECF No. 168) is GRANTED, and this matter is
DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE pursuant to the parties’ stipulation and
Mediated Settlement Agreement;

2.

Pursuant to the Court’s equitable powers, Defendants are awarded reasonable
attorneys’ fees and costs resulting from Plaintiffs’ vexatious actions after the
6

filing of the Notice of Settlement (ECF No. 140), and Defendants shall file
documentation supporting the amounts requested on or before August 29, 2014;
and
3.

The remaining motions pending in this case (ECF Nos. 103, 118, 144, 147, 154,
163, 165, 166, 167) are DENIED AS MOOT.
Dated this 4th day of August, 2014.
BY THE COURT:

_______________________
William J. Martínez
United States District Judge

7