THORNTON v. ATHENS-CLARKE COUNTY UNIFIED GOVERNMENT, et al

Filing 15

ORDER granting 12 Motion for Default Judgment. Ordered by US DISTRICT JUDGE CLAY D LAND on 1/25/2018. (CCL)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
ATHENS DIVISION
BRIAN KEITH THORNTON,

*

Plaintiff,

*

vs.

*

UNIFIED GOVERNMENT OF ATHENSCLARKE COUNTY, GEORGIA,

*

CASE NO. 3:17-CV-112 (CDL)
*
Defendant.
*
O R D E R
Plaintiff
discrimination

Brian

Keith

action

Thornton

against

his

brought

former

this

employment

employer,

Defendant

Unified Government of Athens-Clarke County, Georgia (“ACC”), under
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et
seq.

ACC

reached

filed

with

a

counterclaim

Thornton’s

to

attorney

enforce
before

the

settlement

Thornton

fired

ACC
him.

Thornton did not answer or otherwise respond to the counterclaim,
and the Clerk entered a default as to Thornton on November 17,
2017.

ACC’s motion for default judgment followed.

not respond.

Thornton did

As discussed below, the motion (ECF No. 12) is

granted.
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
By

his

default,

Thornton

admitted

allegations of fact in ACC’s counterclaim.

the

well-pleaded

See, e.g., Eagle Hosp.

Physicians, LLC v. SRG Consulting, Inc., 561 F.3d 1298, 1307 (11th

Cir. 2009) (“A ‘defendant, by his default, admits the plaintiff’s
well-pleaded

allegations

of

fact

. . . .’”

(quoting

Nishimatsu

Constr. Co. v. Houston Nat’l Bank, 515 F.2d 1200, 1206 (5th Cir.
1975)).

ACC alleged the following facts in its counterclaim:

ACC terminated Thornton on March 2, 2017.

He appealed via

ACC’s administrative appeal procedures, and he hired attorney Jeff
Del Rio to represent him.
that

he

represented

settlement

demand

of

Del Rio sent ACC a letter to inform ACC

Thornton
$20,000

in
on

the

matter.

behalf

of

Del

Rio

Thornton.

made

a

ACC’s

attorney made a counteroffer of $2,500 in exchange for a release
of Thornton’s claims and several other terms.

Del Rio responded

with a “best and final” settlement offer of $10,000 and stated
that the terms ACC’s attorney proposed were acceptable.

ACC’s

attorney sent an email to Del Rio confirming the terms of the
settlement agreement he and Del Rio reached, which included (1)
payment of $10,000 to be split between Thornton and Del Rio, (2)
release of all of Thornton’s claims against ACC, (3) non-admission
of liability by ACC, (4) confidentiality of agreement terms by
Thornton, (5) withdrawal of Thornton’s charge before the Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission, and (6) a neutral reference for
Thornton.

Del Rio responded that he was glad they “could get the

matter resolved.”

Def.’s Mot. for Default J. Ex. B, Email from J.

Del Rio to P. Lail (Apr. 12, 2017 at 9:48 AM), ECF No. 8-2 at 2.
ACC’s

attorney

notified

the

hearing

2

officer

that

the

appeal

hearing could be cancelled.
ACC’s

attorney

limitations

on

that

Neither Thornton nor Del Rio informed

Thornton

Del

Rio’s

had

placed

authority

to

any

restrictions

settle

the

claims

or
on

Thornton’s behalf.
The next day, Del Rio notified ACC’s attorney that Thornton
did not wish to resolve the matter and that Thornton wanted to
reschedule his appeal hearing.

ACC’s attorney informed Del Rio

that there was no need to hold the hearing because the parties had
reached a settlement.

Shortly after that, Del Rio informed ACC’s

attorney that he no longer represented Thornton.
then

wrote

Thornton

a

letter

summarizing

the

ACC’s attorney
details

of

the

parties’ settlement and asking for instructions on how to issue
the

settlement

checks.

Thornton

did

not

respond,

and

ACC’s

attorney tendered the checks in accordance with Del Rio’s prior
instructions.
attorney.

The

checks

were

refused

and

returned

to

ACC’s

Thornton later filed this action.
DISCUSSION

After Thornton filed this action, ACC filed a counterclaim
seeking to enforce the settlement agreement.

Thornton did not

answer or otherwise respond to the counterclaim, and the Clerk
entered a default under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(a).
Thornton did not seek to set aside the default.

Although the

well-pleaded facts alleged in the counterclaim are taken as true,
the Court must still determine whether those allegations state a

3

claim for relief.
1307

(noting

that

Cf. Eagle Hosp. Physicians, LLC, 561 F.3d at
a

default

defendant

may

“challenge

the

sufficiency of the complaint, even if he may not challenge the
sufficiency of the proof”).
“A settlement agreement is a contract, and it ‘must meet the
same

requirements

contracts.’”

of

formation

and

enforceability

as

other

DeRossett Enters., Inc. v. Gen. Elec. Capital Corp.,

621 S.E.2d 755, 756 (Ga. Ct. App. 2005) (quoting Greenwald v.
Kersh, 621 S.E.2d 465, 467 (Ga. Ct. App. 2005)).
the

minds

exists”

and

there

is

an

offer

If a “meeting of

and

acceptance

consideration, then a binding contract is formed.
Greenwald, 621 S.E.2d at 467).
when

parties

have

entered

Id. (quoting

The law “favors compromise, and
into

a

definite,

certain,

unambiguous agreement to settle, it should be enforced.”
(quoting

Greenwald,

621

for

S.E.2d

at

467).

In

other

and
Id.

words,

a

settlement “contract is enforceable when its terms are ‘expressed
in language sufficiently plain and explicit to convey what the
parties agreed upon.’” Id. at 757 (quoting Mon Ami Int’l, Inc. v.
Gale, 592 S.E.2d 83, 87 (Ga. Ct. App. 2003)).
A

formal

written

agreement

is

not

necessary;

“letters

or

documents prepared by attorneys which memorialize the terms of the
agreement reached will suffice.”

Johnson v. DeKalb Cty., 726

S.E.2d 102, 106 (Ga. Ct. App. 2012) (quoting Pourreza v. Teel
Appraisals & Advisory, Inc., 616 S.E.2d 108, 111 (Ga. Ct. App.

4

2005)).

In Johnson, for example, the Georgia Court of Appeals

found that emails between the parties’ attorneys constituted a
binding

settlement

agreement.

Id.;

accord

DeRossett

Enters.,

Inc., 621 S.E.2d at 757 (finding that the parties had a binding
settlement agreement based on letters between their attorneys).
Finally,

“[u]nder

Georgia

law

an

attorney

of

record

has

apparent authority to enter into an agreement on behalf of his
client and the agreement is enforceable against the client by
other settling parties.”

Brumbelow v. N. Propane Gas Co., 308

S.E.2d 544, 546 (Ga. 1983).

“This authority is determined by the

contract between the attorney and the client and by instructions
given the attorney by the client, and in the absence of express
restrictions”

that

are

communicated

to

authority may be considered plenary by
parties.”

Id.

opposing

parties,

“the

the court and opposing

“Therefore, where there is no challenge to the

existence or the terms of an agreement but only to an attorney’s
authority to enter into it, the client is bound by its terms even
in the absence of a writing or detrimental reliance on the part of
the opposite party.”

Id. at 547.

Here, the terms of the settlement agreement were memorialized
in an email between Del Rio and ACC’s attorney: (1) payment of
$10,000 to be split between Thornton and Del Rio, (2) release of
all

of

liability

Thornton’s
by

ACC,

claims
(4)

against

ACC,

confidentiality

5

(3)
of

non-admission

agreement

terms

of
by

Thornton, (5) withdrawal of Thornton’s charge before the Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission, and (6) a neutral reference for
Thornton.
settle

ACC knew of no restrictions on Del Rio’s authority to

Thornton’s

settlement
therefore

claims.

agreement
grants

Accordingly,

between

ACC’s

Thornton

motion

for

there

and

default

was

a

ACC.

binding

The

judgment

Court
on

its

counterclaim to enforce the settlement (ECF No. 12).
ACC

is

directed

to

provide

Thornton

with

a

release

releases only his claims asserted in this action.
directed

to

sign

the

release

and

return

the

counsel within fourteen days of receipt of it.

that

Thornton is

release

to

ACC’s

Within seven days

of receipt of the release, ACC is directed to provide Thornton
with the settlement funds.

If Thornton’s prior counsel has filed

an appropriate attorney’s lien pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 15-19-14,
ACC shall pay the funds into the registry of this Court, and the
Court will determine how the funds should be divided.

After the

release has been received and the funds disbursed, ACC shall file
a motion to dismiss the action.
IT IS SO ORDERED, this 25th day of January, 2018.
S/Clay D. Land
CLAY D. LAND
CHIEF U.S. DISTRICT COURT JUDGE
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA

6