Amaya v. Butler et al

Filing 190

ORDER DENYING 179 MOTION in Limine filed by Daniel Amaya, and GRANTING 182 MOTION to Enforce Settlement and Motion for Sanctions filed by John A. Burrow. The Settlement Agreement and General Release that was fully executed by the par ties as of September 27, 2021 shall be enforced. The Court need not consider Defendant's alternative argument for sanctions. Defendant shall file a notice with the Court by January 21, 2022 advising of the status of the settlement and payment concerning the same. Signed by Magistrate Judge Reona J. Daly on 12/22/2021. (nmf)

Case 3:16-cv-01390-RJD Document 190 Filed 12/22/21 Page 1 of 8 Page ID #2433

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
DANIEL AMAYA,
Plaintiff,
v.
JOHN A. BURROW,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 16-cv-1390-RJD

ORDER
DALY, Magistrate Judge:
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine to Nullify Any and All
Proposed Settlement (Doc. 179), and Defendant’s Motion to Enforce Settlement and Motion for
Sanctions (Doc. 182). For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiff’s Motion is DENIED and
Defendant’s Motion is GRANTED as to his request that the settlement agreement be enforced.
Background
Plaintiff Daniel Amaya brought this lawsuit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging he was
sexually assaulted during a shakedown and strip search conducted on April 1, 2016 at Menard
Correctional Center. Plaintiff was assigned counsel in September 2019. Thus, Plaintiff was
represented through much of discovery and the entirety of the summary judgment phase of this
litigation.
On July 7, 2021, following entry of the Court’s order on summary judgment, the parties
filed a notice indicating that the parties, through counsel, agreed to terms of settlement in this
matter (Doc. 177). The undersigned then issued a 120-day order and advised that judgment of
dismissal with prejudice would enter on November 8, 2021 (Doc. 178).
Page 1 of 8

Case 3:16-cv-01390-RJD Document 190 Filed 12/22/21 Page 2 of 8 Page ID #2434

On October 4, 2021, Plaintiff filed an “Emergency Motion in Limine” to nullify the
proposed settlement (Doc. 179). In this motion, Plaintiff asserts that during the pendency of this
action he was harassed, intimidated, threatened, and coerced into accepting the proposed
settlement. Plaintiff specifically complains about Officer Bailey, who is not a party to this action.
Plaintiff asserts he advised his attorney about the harassment, but no action was taken. Plaintiff
requests that his settlement agreement be voided as he was under “distress from retaliation of
which counsel was aware.”
On October 14, 2021, Defendant Burrow filed a Motion to Enforce Settlement and Motion
for Sanctions (Doc. 182). Defendant explains he received executed settlement documents from
Plaintiff’s counsel (that had been signed by both Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel) on September 2,
2021, and sent the executed documents to IDOC for signature on September 17, 2021. On
September 27, 2021, Defendant’s counsel received the documents back from IDOC, fully
executed. Plaintiff filed his “Emergency Motion in Limine” on October 4, 2021, and on October
14, 2021, the executed settlement documents were sent to the Office of the Illinois Attorney
General for final signature and submission to CMS.
In his motion, Burrow argues there was a valid contract as there was an offer, acceptance,
and a mutual meeting of the minds on all material elements. Defendant argues Plaintiff simply
changing his mind is an insufficient reason to not enforce the agreement. Defendant asks that the
settlement agreement be enforced as a matter of equity, or, in the alternative, that Plaintiff be
sanctioned for his refusal to effect settlement per the terms agreed to by the parties and his claims
be dismissed with prejudice and that Defendant be awarded costs for filing his motion.
The undersigned held a hearing on October 19, 2021, wherein Plaintiff’s attorney,
Christian Willenborg, was terminated from his representation of Plaintiff. Plaintiff was directed
Page 2 of 8

Case 3:16-cv-01390-RJD Document 190 Filed 12/22/21 Page 3 of 8 Page ID #2435

to file a response to Defendant’s Motion to Enforce Settlement and Motion for Sanctions.
In his response filed November 5, 2021, Plaintiff acknowledges that Attorney Willenborg
was allowed to negotiate a settlement on his behalf, but did so with knowledge that Plaintiff was
being harassed. Plaintiff reiterates he was being harassed and intimated and agreed to settlement
while under duress. As such, Plaintiff asserts there was not a meeting of the minds. Plaintiff
asserts he sought help from correctional officers, counselors, internal affairs, the Illinois State
Police, the IDOC Director, and his former attorney.
Plaintiff further contends that when he signed the agreement, the pages were double-sided
and he never saw page two as it was blank. Plaintiff asserts when he asked about the missing page
he was told to sign the document or he could receive a disciplinary ticket.
Plaintiff attached over 100 pages of documents to his response. Plaintiff does not explain
the relevancy of the attached documents. Upon review, the Court finds many of the documents
relate to issues Plaintiff had with Officer Bailey, the property officer at Pinckneyville. Relevant
to the issues before the Court, Plaintiff asserts Bailey at one point saw that Plaintiff had a lawsuit
against Burrow, and then proceeded to provide Plaintiff with a set of headphones as “payment” if
Plaintiff dropped the Burrow lawsuit, with the promise of more free property. Plaintiff was later
found guilty of certain offenses related to this accusation as it was found to be false. However, the
ARB later expunged the disciplinary record. These incidents with Bailey occurred in April 2020.
Beyond the issues with Officer Bailey and their tangential reference to Burrow and this lawsuit, it
is unclear how the documents support Plaintiff’s position that he was under duress when he signed
the settlement documents in this case.
The undersigned held a hearing on the pending motions concerning the settlement on
December 13, 2021. At the hearing, Plaintiff testified he signed the settlement documents in early
Page 3 of 8

Case 3:16-cv-01390-RJD Document 190 Filed 12/22/21 Page 4 of 8 Page ID #2436

September 2021 outside of the “BFI” room. Plaintiff testified he was given the documents by
Diane Skorch. Upon review, Plaintiff noticed page two of four was missing and, when he advised
Skorch about the issue, he was told he needed to sign the documents and talk to his lawyer.
Plaintiff testified no one forced him to sign the documents; however, he explained that if he does
not do what he is told to do he is subject to disciplinary procedures.
Plaintiff testified he spoke to his attorney numerous times concerning the documented
issues with Bailey, but his attorney never informed anyone of the allegations against Bailey.
With regard to settlement discussions, Plaintiff testified that around May or June 2021 he
allowed his attorney to enter into settlement negotiations with Defendant. Plaintiff also testified
he agreed to the amount that was offered and reflected in the settlement agreement. However,
Plaintiff asserts the agreement was never “solidified.” Plaintiff also testified he wanted to ensure
that notwithstanding any settlement he would not be prevented from seeking relief from Atchison
at a later date.
Chalene Hale, the litigation coordinator at Pinckneyville at all times relevant, also testified
at the hearing. Ms. Hale explained that the settlement documents were sent to her via email for
Plaintiff’s signature by Plaintiff’s attorney around the end of August 2021. Ms. Hale testified she
printed all of the documents that were sent, disputing Plaintiff’s testimony that Ms. Skorch
provided him the documents. Ms. Hale recalled providing the settlement documents she had
printed to Plaintiff and gave Plaintiff time to sit on pews in the clinical services hallway to review
the same. Ms. Hale did not stay with Plaintiff while he reviewed the documents, nor did she see
anybody with Plaintiff during this time. Ms. Hale testified she may have checked on Plaintiff to
see if he had signed them and, once she received the signed documents from Plaintiff, she scanned
them in and sent them back to whomever sent them. Ms. Hale testified it was possible she printed
Page 4 of 8

Case 3:16-cv-01390-RJD Document 190 Filed 12/22/21 Page 5 of 8 Page ID #2437

the documents double-sided, but she printed all of the documents that were sent to her.
Ms. Hale explained that if an inmate does not follow a direct order there is a procedure for
writing them a ticket. However, she asserted she does not write tickets.
Discussion
Settlement agreements are contracts and are interpreted according to the law of the
jurisdiction in which the contract was allegedly created — in this instance, Illinois. In re
Motorola Sec. Litig., 644 F.3d 511, 517 (7th Cir. 2011). As with any contract, there must be an
offer to settle, an acceptance of the offer, and a meeting of the minds. See Dillard v. Starcon Int’l,
Inc., 483 F.3d 502, 507 (7th Cir. 2007). “Illinois courts favor voluntary settlements, and litigants
are bound by them, regardless of how unwise they may seem in retrospect, unless they are grossly
unfair or unconscionable.” Opper v. Brotz, 661 N.E.2d 1159, 1162 (Ill. App. Ct. 1996) (citations
omitted).
A threshold inquiry before determining the terms of an agreement, however, is whether an
attorney who purportedly agreed to a settlement on behalf of a client had the express authority to
do so. An attorney’s representation of a client does not automatically confer on the attorney the
authority to compromise or settle the case. See Brewer v. Nat’l R.R. Passenger Corp., 649 N.E.2d
1331, 1333-34 (Ill. 1995). Instead, the attorney must receive the client’s “express authority” to
settle. Id. at 1334. Notably, “[a]n attorney’s authority to agree to an out-of-court settlement will
not be presumed and the burden of proof rests on the party alleging authority to show that fact.”
Magallanes v. Illinois Bell Telephone Co., 535 F.3d 582, 584 (7th Cir. 2008) (citations omitted);
see also Schmalz v. Village of North Riverside, Case No. 13-cv-8012, 2016 WL 6395586, at *3
(N.D. Ill. Oct. 28, 2016) (defendants’ motion to enforce settlement denied on basis that defendants
did not meet burden of proving that plaintiff’s counsel had authority to accept settlement offer on
Page 5 of 8

Case 3:16-cv-01390-RJD Document 190 Filed 12/22/21 Page 6 of 8 Page ID #2438

plaintiff’s behalf).
Here, there was clearly an out-of-court settlement. As such, the Court must find that
Plaintiff’s counsel had express authority to settle his case on the terms proffered by Defendant.
Plaintiff’s filings made no mention of any lack of authority on behalf of his attorney. Indeed,
Plaintiff made clear in his filings that he claimed he was under duress in signing the documents.
At the hearing, Plaintiff’s testimony indicated that his attorney had the authority to enter into
negotiations and that he agreed to the amount offered and reflected in the settlement agreement.
Plaintiff also testified that his attorney told him he would be receiving a copy of the settlement
agreement and his attorney advised him to review everything because “there was an issue with one
of the Defendants that got dismissed,” which Plaintiff testified was Michael Atchison. Based on
Plaintiff’s testimony, it appears Plaintiff was concerned about waiving his rights to appeal the
dismissal of Defendant Atchison. The Court finds, however, that Plaintiff’s concern did not
obviate his attorney’s authority to settle this matter on his behalf. Moreover, when Plaintiff
signed the settlement documents he clearly evidenced his attorney’s authority to settle this matter
on his behalf.
The Court acknowledges Plaintiff’s argument that he signed the documents under duress.
However, the Court finds Plaintiff has failed to present any evidence to substantiate such a claim.
Duress or coercion is a ground for invalidating the terms of a settlement agreement. See, e.g.,
Selyutin v. Aon PLC, 2021 WL 4936245, at *2 (N.D. Ill. May 7, 2021) (“voluntary agreements in
Illinois are presumptively valid unless a party proves, for example, … ‘a serious inequity in the
bargaining process, such as the existence of grossly disparate bargaining positions, which includes
such factors as the parties’ relative education and sophistication, representation by legal counsel,
and the presence of duress or oppression.’” (quoting Opper, 661 N.E.2d at 1162); see also
Page 6 of 8

Case 3:16-cv-01390-RJD Document 190 Filed 12/22/21 Page 7 of 8 Page ID #2439

Musgrove v. Petters, No. 92 C 3267, 1992 WL 205858, at *2 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 19, 1992). For
duress to exist, there must be “some imposition, oppression, undue influence, or the taking of
undue advantage of the business or financial stress or extreme necessities or weaknesses of
another.” Lannan v. Reno, 139 F.3d 901 (7th Cir. 1998) (internal quotation and citation omitted).
Here, Plaintiff seems to link his duress to harassment endured by Officer Bailey; however, the
issues with Officer Bailey that concerned this lawsuit occurred in April 2020, more than one year
prior to signing the settlement agreement at issue. There is no indication Plaintiff was met with
harassment or undue influence near the time of signing his documents or giving authority for his
counsel to engage in settlement negotiations. Moreover, the Court finds Plaintiff’s claim that he
was made to sign the documents or face disciplinary procedures disingenuous. Plaintiff testified
that no one made any such threat at the time he signed the documents or forced him to sign, and
Ms. Hale testified she does not write disciplinary tickets.
Conclusion
Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine to Nullify Any and All Proposed
Settlement (Doc. 179) is DENIED, and Defendant’s Motion to Enforce Settlement and Motion for
Sanctions (Doc. 182) is GRANTED as to his request that the settlement agreement be enforced.
The Settlement Agreement and General Release that was fully executed by the parties as of
September 27, 2021 shall be enforced. The Court need not consider Defendant’s alternative
argument for sanctions. Defendant shall file a notice with the Court by January 21, 2022
advising of the status of the settlement and payment concerning the same.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: December 22, 2021

Page 7 of 8

Case 3:16-cv-01390-RJD Document 190 Filed 12/22/21 Page 8 of 8 Page ID #2440

s/ Reona J. Daly
Hon. Reona J. Daly
United States Magistrate Judge

Page 8 of 8