Ward v. Fort Wayne et al
Filing
77
OPINION AND ORDER: GRANTING 76 MOTION Enforce Settlement Agreement by Defendants Ken Clement, Jason Crowder, Christopher Faherty, City of Fort Wayne, Robert Geiger, Chris Hoffman, TJ Hullinger, Paul McCarran. Ward is ORDERED to tender (through co unsel) the signed and notarized Release to Defendants on or before July 30, 2018. Upon receipt, Defendants' counsel is to promptly order the settlement check from the City of Fort Wayne and then send it to Ward's counsel, and then file the stipulation and proposed court order. Signed by Magistrate Judge Susan L Collins on 7/16/2018. (lhc)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
FORT WAYNE DIVISION
MICHAEL WARD,
Plaintiff,
v.
CITY OF FORT WAYNE, et al.,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CAUSE NO. 1:16-cv-00060-SLC
OPINION AND ORDER
On April 17, 2018, the parties informed the Court during a telephonic status conference
that the parties had reached an agreement to settle this case, and the Court directed the parties to
file a stipulation of dismissal within 14 days. (DE 72). The parties, however, failed to file the
stipulation. On June 13, 2018, the Court held a telephonic status conference during which
Attorney Christopher Myers, counsel to Plaintiff Michael Ward, advised the Court that the case
had indeed settled but that Ward would not honor the settlement. (DE 75).
On June 14, 2018, Defendants filed a Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement. (DE
76). Ward has not filed a response to the motion, and his time to do so has now passed. N.D.
Ind. L.R. 7-1(d)(2)(A). For the following reasons, Defendants’ motion will be GRANTED.
A. Factual Background
The relevant facts as represented by Defendants are as follows: On April 16, 2018,
Attorney Myers informed Attorney Carolyn Trier, counsel to Defendants, that Ward accepted
Defendants’ offer of $6,000 to settle this lawsuit, and that Ward is not considered a prevailing
party and is not entitled to any additional money for attorney fees. (DE 76 at 1). That same day,
Attorney Trier sent a letter to Attorney Myers confirming that this case had settled for $6,000,
and that Ward is not the prevailing party and that the $6,000 settlement amount includes attorney
fees. (DE 76-1). Attorney Trier enclosed a Release and Hold Harmless Agreement (the
“Release”) with the letter, which Ward was to sign and have notarized and return, together with a
stipulation to dismiss and a proposed court order. (DE 76-1). Attorney Trier stated that once she
received the signed and notarized Release back from Attorney Myers, she would order the
settlement check from the City of Fort Wayne, send the settlement check to Attorney Myers, and
then file the stipulation and proposed court order. (DE 76-1).
On May 11, 2018, Attorney Trier sent a letter to Attorney Myers inquiring about the
status of the Release. (DE 76-2). On May 30, 2018, Attorney Trier sent another letter to
Attorney Myers asking about the status of the Release. (DE 76-2). On June 14, 2018,
Defendants filed the instant motion to enforce the settlement agreement. (DE 76).
B. Applicable Legal Standard
“The district court has inherent authority to enforce a settlement agreement reached in
litigation pending before it.” Tuttle v. SMS Corp. Of Am., No. 1:07-cv-1238-DFH-JMS, 2008
WL 4082433, at *1 (S.D. Ind. Aug. 29, 2008) (citing Carr v. Runyan, 89 F.3d 327, 331 (7th Cir.
1996); Wilson v. Wilson, 46 F.3d 660, 667 (7th Cir. 1995)); see also Hakim v. Payco-Gen. Am.
Credits, Inc., 272 F.3d 932, 935 (7th Cir. 2001); Sims-Madison v. Inland Paperboard &
Packaging, 379 F.3d 445, 448-50 (7th Cir. 2004). An agreement to settle claims in a federal
court is enforceable “just like any other contract.” Dillard v. Starcon Int’l, Inc., 483 F.3d 502,
506 (7th Cir. 2007). State contract law governs issues regarding the formation, construction, and
enforceability of a settlement agreement. Pohl v. United Airlines, Inc., 213 F.3d 336, 338 (7th
Cir. 2000).
2
Under Indiana law, which governs here, an agreement to settle a lawsuit is generally
enforceable. Zimmerman v. McColley, 826 N.E.2d 71, 76-80 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005). As
“[s]ettlement agreements are governed by the same general principles of contract law as any
other agreement,” they require “[a]n offer, acceptance, [and] consideration.” Id. at 76. “It is
established that if a party agrees to settle a pending action, but then refuses to consummate his
settlement agreement, the opposing party may obtain a judgment enforcing the agreement.” Id.
(citing Georgos v. Jackson, 790 N.E.2d 448, 453 (Ind. 2003)).
Agreements to settle are “enforceable against a plaintiff who knowingly and voluntarily
agreed to the terms of the settlement or authorized his attorney to settle the dispute.” Glass v.
Rock Island Ref. Corp., 788 F.2d 450, 454 (7th Cir. 1986) (internal quotations omitted) (applying
Indiana law); see Whittington v. Trs. of Purdue Univ., No. 2:09 cv 9, 2011 WL 1336514, at *2
(N.D. Ind. Apr. 5, 2011) (“The parties must knowingly and voluntarily enter into the agreement
either personally or by providing their attorneys with authority to settle.” (citation omitted)).
Once an agreement is reached, “[a] party to a settlement cannot avoid the agreement merely
because he subsequently believes the settlement insufficient . . . .” Glass, 788 F.2d at 454
(citation omitted). A party who has previously authorized a settlement remains bound by its
terms even if he changes his mind. Id. at 454-55.
C. Discussion
Ward has not responded to Defendants’ motion to enforcement the settlement agreement,
and therefore, the motion is unopposed. The evidence presented by Defendants in the motion
(DE 76-1 to DE 71-3), as well as the representations of both parties’ counsel at the telephonic
status conferences on April 17, 2018, and June 13, 2018 (DE 72; DE 75), indicate that there was
3
“a meeting of the minds” between the parties with respect to the terms of the settlement. Fox
Dev., Inc. v. England, 837 N.E.2d 161, 165 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005); see Zimmerman v. McColley,
826 N.E.2d 71, 77 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005) (stating that the subjective intent of the parties is not
relevant and that Indiana courts look to the outward manifestation of the parties’ intent to
determine if there truly was a meeting of the minds). The parties agreed that Defendants will
pay $6,000 to Ward, which amount includes attorney fees, to settle all of Ward’s claims against
Defendants arising out of the July 23 and July 24, 2014, incident. Because there was a valid
offer, acceptance, and consideration as to the material terms of the settlement, see Zimmerman,
826 N.E.2d at 76-80, there is a valid and enforceable settlement agreement.
That Ward now may feel unhappy about the settlement is “neither here nor there.” Allen
v. Dana, No. 1:10-cv-281 PPS-RBC, 2011 WL 3163232, at *2 (N.D. Ind. July 26, 2011)
(collecting cases). Ward remains bound by the terms of the settlement even if he has since had a
change of heart. See id. at 454-55. Consequently, Defendants’ motion to enforce the settlement
agreement will be GRANTED.
D. Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, Defendants’ Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement (DE
76) is GRANTED. Ward is ORDERED to tender (through counsel) the signed and notarized
Release to Defendants on or before July 30, 2018. Upon receipt, Defendants’ counsel is to
promptly order the settlement check from the City of Fort Wayne and then send it to Ward’s
counsel, and then file the stipulation and proposed court order.
SO ORDERED. Entered this 16th day of July 2018.
/s/ Susan Collins
Susan Collins
United States Magistrate Judge
4
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?