Smego v. Wexford Health Sources Inc et al
Filing
48
OPINION and ORDER: Defendants are to tender to Plaintiff a written settlement agreement which conforms with the terms of the settlement agreement between the parties within 15 days of the entry of this Order; Defendants shall tender with the settle ment agreement a stipulation for dismissal of all claims with prejudice, each side to bear their own costs and attorney's fees; Plaintiff shall execute the settlement agreement and the stipulation to dismiss and return same to Defendants within 10 days of his receipt; Defendants shall file the stipulation to dismiss with the Court within 10 days after receipt of the executed stipulation from Plaintiff. SEE WRITTEN OPINION AND ORDER. Entered by Magistrate Judge Tom Schanzle-Haskins on 10/23/2017. (SKN, ilcd)
E-FILED
Monday, 23 October, 2017 02:16:23 PM
Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
RICHARD MICHAEL SMEGO,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
WEXFORD HEALTH SOURCES, INC., )
et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
No. 16-cv-4058
OPINION AND ORDER
TOM SCHANZLE-HASKINS, U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE:
Pro se Plaintiff Richard M. Smego filed this action complaining of
deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs concerning dental care
while a resident of the Department of Human Services detention facility
located in Rushville, Illinois. Defendant Wexford Health Sources, Inc.
contracts with the Department of Human Services to provide dental care to
the residents of the DHS detention facility. The individual Defendants are
employed in various capacities at the DHS facility.
FACTS
On June 20, 2017, the Court conducted a settlement conference.
Participating in the settlement conference were the Plaintiff Richard Smego
and defense counsel, Douglass Bitner, Kyle Rockershousen, and Theresa
Page 1 of 7
Powell. The parties reached a settlement agreement. The settlement
agreement was stated by the Court and all parties orally agreed to the
terms of the stated settlement agreement.
On July 12, 2017, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Reopen Settlement
Conference (d/e 44) (Motion). Plaintiff’s essential complaint was that the
Defendants’ tendered settlement agreements to him did not conform with
the agreed settlement reached by the parties on June 20, 2017.
Defendants filed no responses to Plaintiff’s Motion.
Upon reviewing the Motion, the Court ordered the Plaintiff to produce
all settlement agreements referred to in his Motion to the Court for in
camera review. (8/15/2017 Text Order) Plaintiff forwarded the documents
to the Court as ordered and the undersigned reviewed the settlement
documents tendered to the Court.
After reviewing the documents, the Court ordered a telephonic
settlement conference among the parties on October 13, 2017, at 1:30 p.m.
The settlement conference took place. Participating in the conference were
Plaintiff Richard Smego and defense attorneys Joseph Rupcich, Kyle
Rockershousen, and Theresa Powell, representing their respective
Defendants.
Page 2 of 7
COURT’S RULING ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO REOPEN
AND ORDER REGARDING ENFORCEMENT OF SETTLEMENT
This Court “possesses the inherent or equitable power summarily to
enforce an agreement to settle a case pending before it.” Wilson v. Wilson,
46 F.3d 660, 664 (7th Cir. 1995). See also Brewer v. National R.R.
Passenger Corp., 165 Ill.2d 100, 105, 649 N.E.2d 1331, 1333 (Ill. 1995)
(Under Illinois law, a court has authority to enforce a settlement agreement
in a case pending before it.). This case is currently pending before this
Court: judgment has not been entered; the case has not been dismissed.
This Court has jurisdiction over this matter.
Settlement agreements are contracts. Courts apply ordinary contract
construction principles to determine the enforceability and construction of
the settlement agreement. See United States v. Rand Motors, 305 F.3d
770, 774 (7th Cir. 2002); Allstate Financial Corp., 936 F.Supp. at 527.
Illinois law controls since the agreement was made in Illinois. See Dillard v.
Starcon Intern., Inc., 483 F.3d 502, 506-07 (7th Cir. 2007) (state law
controls enforcement of settlement agreements, even if the underlying
claims are based on federal law).
Under Illinois law, oral settlement agreements announced by the
parties in open court are enforceable as long as there has been an offer
and acceptance and a meeting of the minds as to the material terms of the
Page 3 of 7
agreement. Dillard, 483 F.3d at 507; Wilson v. Wilson, 46 F.3d 660, 66667 (7th Cir. 1995). “Whether a ‘meeting of the minds’ occur[s] depends on
the parties’ objective conduct, not their subjective beliefs.” Dillard, 483
F.3d at 507. The terms of the settlement agreement need not be recorded
as long as they were agreed to before the Court. See Rose v. Mavrakis,
343 Ill.App.3d 1086, 1096-97, 799 N.E.2d 469, 478 (Ill. App. 1st Dist. 2003)
(oral settlement agreement reached in settlement conference conducted by
the court is enforceable).
Such oral settlement agreements are enforceable as long as their
terms are sufficiently definite. “Under Illinois law, ‘[a] contract is sufficiently
definite and certain to be enforceable if the court is enabled from the terms
and provisions thereof, under proper rules of construction and applicable
principles of equity, to ascertain what the parties have agreed to do.’”
Wilson, 46 F.3d at 667 (quoting Academy Chicago Publishers v. Cheever,
144 Ill.2d 24, 161 Ill.Dec. 335, 337, 578 N.E.2d 981, 983 (1991)). Such
agreements are enforceable even if the parties did not spell out
nonessential details. Rose, 799 N.E.2d at 474.
In this case, the parties entered into an enforceable settlement
agreement on June 20, 2017 in open court. The objective conduct of the
parties demonstrated that there was a meeting of the minds. Plaintiff and
Page 4 of 7
counsel for all Defendants appeared in person and agreed to the material
terms of the settlement before this Court.
The parties agreed that the terms of the settlement would be
confidential. The Court made an audio recording of the terms of the
settlement and each of the parties agreed that the terms stated by the
Court were the terms of “our settlement”. During the October 13, 2017,
conference call, the Court reviewed the specific terms of the settlement
with Plaintiff and the attorneys for the respective Defendants. Based upon
the legal principles set forth above, the Court informed the parties that the
Court has determined the settlement agreement entered into by the parties
on June 20, 2017 was enforceable.
The Court read the essential terms of the settlement to the parties
from the transcript of the terms of the settlement recorded on June 20,
2017. The Court ordered that the transcript be filed UNDER SEAL with the
Court and ordered the Clerk to mail a copy of the transcript to each of the
attorneys appearing for the telephone conference, as well as to the Plaintiff.
The copies of the transcript reciting the settlement agreement were
stamped “SEALED” and “CONFIDENTIAL”. The parties are to maintain the
confidentiality of the terms of the settlement agreement pursuant to their
agreement. The Court gave non-exhaustive examples of the nonPage 5 of 7
compliance with the tendered agreement with the parties. Specifically, the
Court noted that the claims released in the tendered settlement
agreements were different from the claims specified in lines 5-9 of page 2
of the transcript of the settlement agreement. The Court also noted that the
operative terms of the services to be provided to the Plaintiff in the
settlement agreement were not those stated in lines 3-25 of page 1 of the
transcript and lines 1-2 on page 2 of the transcript. The Court also noted
that the tendered agreements did not include the obligation for execution of
document required by the settlement agreement by both parties stated in
lines 12-17 of page 1 of the transcript. As noted, this list is not exhaustive.
FOR THE REASONS STATED ABOVE, IT IS ORDERED as follows:
1)
Defendants are to tender to Plaintiff a written settlement
agreement which conforms with the terms of the settlement agreement
between the parties within 15 days of the entry of this Order;
2)
Defendants shall tender with the settlement agreement a
stipulation for dismissal of all claims with prejudice, each side to bear their
own costs and attorney’s fees;
3)
Plaintiff shall execute the settlement agreement and the
stipulation to dismiss and return same to Defendants within 10 days of his
receipt;
Page 6 of 7
4)
Defendants shall file the stipulation to dismiss with the Court
within 10 days after receipt of the executed stipulation from Plaintiff.
ENTERED: October 23, 2017
___s/
Tom Schanzle-Haskins_______
TOM SCHANZLE-HASKINS
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Page 7 of 7
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?