Murphy v. Lakey

Filing 70

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER granting 64 Motion for Settlement. Signed by Judge B. Lynn Winmill. (caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by (st)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO

DAVID W. MURPHY,
Case No. 1:10-cv-00149-BLW
Plaintiff,

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND
ORDER

v.
WATER DISTRICT 37 AND WATER
DISTRICT 37M,
Defendant.

INTRODUCTION
Before the Court is Defendants Water District 37 and Water District 37M’s
Motion to Enforce Settlement (Dkt. 64). For the reasons set forth below, the Court will
grant the motion.
BACKGROUND
On September 12, 2013, the parties attended a judicial settlement conference with
Magistrate Judge Mikel Williams serving as the mediator. Plaintiff David. W. Murphy
and his pro bono counsel, Adam Little, were present at the settlement conference, as well
as Glen Goff of the State of Idaho, Department of Administration, Risk Management

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 1

Program, Idaho Department of Water Resources DAG, Garrick Baxter, and defense
counsel, Michael E. Kelly, for the Water District. At the conclusion of the settlement
conference, the parties reached a resolution, which Judge Williams confirmed on the
record. Minute Entries, Dkts. 52 and 53).
Representatives for the Water District then worked on memorializing the specific
terms of the agreement in the Release and Settlement Agreement. Kelly Aff., Ex. A, Dkt.
61-2. Later, the parties revised the terms and conditions of the Release and Settlement
Agreement and in the language of the an employment reference letter signed by the
Water District 37 Water Master, Kevin Lakey. Id. at Ex. B. Further revisions were made
to the Release and Indemnity Agreement with the addition of Frederic Brossy as a
signatory on the Release for the Water District, and the deletion of the last paragraph in
the employment reference letter, which was done at Murphy’s request. Id. at Exs. C and
D.
On November 12, 2012, Murphy’s pro bono counsel served the Water District
with a motion for leave to withdraw as counsel of record. Mot. to Withdraw, Dkt. 57.
Attached to the Affidavit of Counsel was a complaint Murphy had filed with the U.S.
Department of Justice against the U.S. District Court-District of Idaho claiming that he
was discriminated against during the July 17, 2012 deposition in this matter and also
during the September 17, 2012 settlement conference. Dept. of Justice Compl., Dkt. 57-1
at 5-6.

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 2

In May 2012, Murphy had his doctor submit a note requesting CART
(Communication Assisted Real Time Translation) assistance during his deposition, and
other court proceedings. In July 2012, Murphy was deposed with counsel present but
without aid of the requested CART assistance. At the beginning of the deposition,
defense counsel specifically asked Murphy whether he could hear and Murphy answered
in the affirmative. Murphy Dep. 6:7-11, Ex. E to Kelly Aff., Dkt. 64-2. And at no point
during the deposition did Murphy say he could not continue the deposition without
CART assistance. Kelly Aff. ¶ 7, Dkt. 64-2.
After the deposition, Murphy had an opportunity to review the deposition
transcript and make any necessary changes. Murphy made a few changes and then
verified the transcript. Verification Page, Ex. F. to Kelly Aff., Dkt. 64-2. At no point in
time, did Murphy suggest that anything took place during his deposition that caused him
concern or the belief that he had been taken advantage of during the deposition. Kelly Aff.
¶ 9. According to the Water, District, because Murphy never raised any concerns
regarding his deposition, his deposition testimony did not significantly affect the
settlement discussions.
Murphy also alleges that he could not hear during the settlement conference.
Murphy Aff. ¶ 7, Dkt. 68-1. He says that after reviewing the written settlement agreement
after the settlement conference, he “was simply shocked how much were missed,” and he
“became very discouraged over this.” Resp. Br. at 1, Dkt. 68. Because of all he
apparently missed, Murphy asked his attorney to “repeal” the deposition and settlement,

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 3

and his attorney allegedly told him “it was too late.” Id. 1-2. Murphy suggests that both
his attorney and Judge Williams used his hearing impairment to manipulate him into
settling, and now he refuses to sign the settlement agreement. Id.
The Water District moves to enforce the settlement terms.
ANALYSIS
An agreement to settle a legal dispute is a contract and its enforceability is
governed by state contract law. Jeff D. v. Andrus, 899 F.2d 753, 759 (9th Cir. 1989).
Under Idaho law, a settlement agreement “supersedes and extinguishes all pre-existing
claims the parties intended to settle.” Vanderford Co., Inc. v. Knudson, 249 P.3d 857, 863
(Idaho 2011). “In an action brought to enforce an agreement of compromise and
settlement, made in good faith, the court will not inquire into the merits or validity of the
original claim.” Id. (quoting Goodman v. Lothrop, 151 P.3d 818, 821 (2007)). Instead,
the only issue a court will consider “is the question of the validity and enforceability of
the mediation agreement at issue.” Id.
As with any contract, Idaho law favors the finality of settlements whenever
possible. See Hershey v. Simpson, 725 P.2d 196, 199 (Idaho App. 1986). A court,
however, may set aside a settlement agreement obtained by fraud, duress, undue
influence, or incapacity of a party. Id. In this case, Murphy, through his affidavit, raises
issues of duress, undue influence, and incapacity. “A motion for the enforcement of a
settlement agreement is treated as a motion for summary judgment when no evidentiary

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 4

hearing has been conducted.” Vanderford Co., Inc. v. Knudson, 249 P.3d 85, 864 (Idaho
2011).
Murphy never makes any clear claim of duress or improper influence. In his
affidavit, he says that he could not hear Judge Williams when he addressed all parties in
the courtroom at the beginning of the settlement conference. Murphy Aff. ¶ 7, Dkt. 68-1.
Because Murphy could not hear Judge Williams’ explanation of the proceedings, Murphy
thought it “strange” when he met in chambers with his attorney, Judge Williams, and an
“unidentified lady sitting on a couch” who was not taking notes. Id. After this initial
discussion, “the unknown lady” guided Murphy and his attorney out of the room. Id.
When alone, Murphy and his attorney spoke very little from what Murphy recalls, but
Murphy remembers his attorney’s eyes “were quite red as compare to anyone will look
after little or no sleep.” Id.
Murphy says he discovered later that he did not hear Judge Williams say in this
first chambers conference that everything said in the room was confidential and that
Murphy should feel free to discuss his complaint. Id. Having apparently missed this
explanation, Murphy claims he later felt he could not dispute Judge Williams’ assessment
of his claims. Id. Murphy further alleges that he thought the opening offer from the
defense was $40,000, which he thought was too low. Of course, Murphy was shocked
when the next offer was $7500, and he was told the opening offer had actually been
$4000. Id. “At that point on,” Murphy claims, he “was confused and stressed with
feelings like I was at their mercy.” Id.

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 5

Murphy also suggests in his affidavit that Judge Williams was “pushy” and
insisted that the settlement agreement was in Murphy’s best interest. Id. Murphy adds
that Judge Williams told him that “there was no evidence of discrimination and the Water
District had only 5 employees,” and that Murphy could have applied for a seasonal
position when he had the chance. Murphy told Judge Williams that he could not have
applied for a seasonal position, and Judge Williams said it again, and Murphy again told
him he could not have. When Judge Williams said a third time that Murphy could have
applied for the position, Murphy did not object because Judge Williams allegedly gave
Murphy an “angry and fearful expression.” Id. Murphy criticizes his attorney for not
saying anything or offering assistance during this exchange, causing Murphy to feel
“quite alone.” Id.
Finally, Murphy alleges that he could not understand everything defense counsel
said when they returned to the courtroom to put the settlement terms on the record. Id. A
few times, defense counsel asked Murphy if he could understand, and Murphy replied,
“yes.” Id. Murphy explains that he said, “yes,” because he “could understand that
sentence or the word “understand” because [people] usually emphasize that word.” Id.
Murphy says people often “have the misconception” that his reply to this question means
that he can understand every work spoken.” Id.
These factual allegations fall far short of demonstrating that anyone present at the
settlement conference engaged in any misconduct or exerted any improper influence over
Murphy. Rather, even accepting Murphy’s factual allegations as true, Judge Williams

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 6

acted within the bounds of his role in facilitating settlement, and the evidence does not
show that he, or anyone else present at the settlement conference, bullied Murphy into
accepting the settlement terms. Even if Murphy disagreed with Judge Williams’
assessment of his case, Murphy alleges no facts suggesting he did not voluntarily agree to
settlement.
Nor was there any evidence that Murphy was incapacitated when he agreed to the
general settlement terms. Murphy says he was very stressed during settlement
negotiations, and that he felt “quite alone. He also says in retrospect that he missed much
of what occurred, but he asserts no facts indicating that he did not understand the
essential elements of the settlement agreement. When defense counsel asked Murphy
several times whether Murphy understood what defense counsel was putting on the
record, Murphy said he did. Contrary to what Murphy suggests, most reasonable people
would infer from Murphy’s affirmative answer that he understood the settlement terms
and not just the question, “do you understand this sentence I am asking right now, or do
you understand that the word “understand.” Even assuming, however, Murphy missed
some of the settlement discussions, he fails to specify what settlement terms he missed or
believes are unfair.
At most, Murphy’s factual allegations show mere stress, which is perfectly normal
in such a situation and not grounds to unwind an oral settlement. Olam v. Congress
Mortg. Co. 68 F.Supp.2d 1110, 1144 (N.D.Cal. 1999) (applying California law)
(although mediation lasted more than 12 hours, until 1:00 am, and plaintiff was stressed

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 7

and hungry and suffering from health problems, “these facts fall far short, as a matter of
law, of establishing [] “undue susceptibility”). Moreover, Murphy was represented by
counsel for the entire duration of the mediation. Even assuming Murphy was distressed
and now in hindsight questions why he entered into the agreement, such facts are
insufficient to warrant setting aside the agreement on the ground of incapacity. See, e.g.,
Crupi v. Crupi, 784 So.2d 611, 614 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.2001) (affirming “the trial court's
finding that three Xanax pills, and anxiety and pressure to settle are insufficient ... to set
aside [a mediated settlement agreement]. Otherwise, few, if any, mediated settlement
agreements would be enforceable.”).
Based on the facts alleged, the Court cannot find that Murphy entered into the oral
settlement agreement as a result of duress or undue influence. Likewise, the Court cannot
find that Murphy was incapacitated in a legal sense when he agreed to the settlement
terms. The Court will therefore grant the Water District’s motion to enforce the
settlement agreement.
ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that Defendants Water District 37 and Water District 37M’s
Motion to Enforce Settlement (Dkt. 64) is GRANTED.

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 8

DATED: June 27, 2013

_________________________
B. Lynn Winmill
Chief Judge
United States District Court

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 9