Skertich et al v. RGS Financial et al

Filing 19

OPINION AND ORDER granting 11 Motion to Enforce the Parties' Settlement Agreement. Pursuant to that agreement, the court DISMISSES this case with prejudice. Signed by Senior Judge James T Moody on 1/7/22. (Copy mailed to pro se parties via certified #7003 1680 0005 6489 6678 & #7003 1680 0005 6489 6685). (nal)

USDC IN/ND case 2:21-cv-00149-JTM-JPK document 19 filed 01/07/22 page 1 of 4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
HAMMOND DIVISION
ROBERT SKERTICH, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
RGS FINANCIAL, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 2:21 CV 149

OPINION and ORDER
This matter is before the court on defendants’ motion to enforce the parties’
settlement and dismiss this case. (DE # 11.) For the reasons that follow, the motion will
be granted.
I.

BACKGROUND
On April 5, 2021, plaintiffs Robert Skertich and Mariya Skertich filed a small

claims action in the Lake Superior Court, under cause number 45D09-2104-SC-01509,
against defendants RGS Financial and TCF National Bank, alleging claims related to
credit reporting for a TCF National Bank account. (DE # 4.) The parties reached a
settlement agreement on April 21, 2021, and the agreement was fully executed the
following day. (DE # 15-1.)
Pursuant to the parties’ agreement, plaintiffs agreed to dismiss or waive all
claims they may have against defendants and file a signed and dated notice of dismissal
with prejudice within five days of receipt of the signed settlement agreement. (Id. at 2.)
In turn, defendants agreed to “confirm to Plaintiffs that the Account has been deleted

USDC IN/ND case 2:21-cv-00149-JTM-JPK document 19 filed 01/07/22 page 2 of 4

(or has been requested to be deleted) from the credit reporting agencies to which
Defendants report (Equifax, Experian and Trans Union[.])” (Id.)
The settlement agreement noted that defendants do not control the actions of the
credit reporting agencies, and “thus [defendants] may only request that the Agencies
make changes to their credit history; and that it may take up to 60 days for the Agencies
to make the requested changes.” (Id. at 3.) In the event that the credit reporting agencies
had not made the appropriate change within 90 days of the execution of the settlement
agreement, the parties agreed that defendants would re-contact the agencies and again
request that the account be updated. (Id.)
On April 13, 2021, RGS Financial submitted a request to have the tradeline
associated with Mariya Skertich’s credit report deleted from Equifax, Experian, and
Trans Union. (DE # 11-2 at 2.) On April 27, 2021, RGS Financial re-submitted this
request to the three credit reporting agencies. (Id.) RGS Financial had not reported any
tradeline associated with Robert Skertich’s credit report. (Id.) Furthermore, TCF
National Bank had not reported any tradeline associated with either Robert or Mariya’s
credit report. (DE # 11-3 at 2.)
Defendants represent that on April 27, 2021, plaintiffs refused to dismiss the state
action. (DE # 11 at 2.) According to defendants, plaintiffs refused to sign a notice of
dismissal on the basis that the credit reporting agencies were still reporting the account.
(Id.) On April 29, 2021, defendants removed the case to this court, on the basis of federal
question jurisdiction. (DE # 1.)
2

USDC IN/ND case 2:21-cv-00149-JTM-JPK document 19 filed 01/07/22 page 3 of 4

Defendants now move this court to enforce the settlement agreement and
dismiss this case with prejudice. (DE # 11.) Plaintiffs failed to file a response brief and
the time to do so has now passed. See N.D. Ind. L.R. 7-1(d). This matter is ripe for
ruling.
II.

DISCUSSION
Federal courts apply state law contract principles to motions to enforce a

settlement agreement. Dillard v. Starcon Int’l, Inc., 483 F.3d 502, 506 (7th Cir. 2007);
Lynch, Inc. v. SamataMason Inc., 279 F.3d 487, 490 (7th Cir. 2002). In this case, the parties
agreed that Indiana law would govern their agreement. (DE # 15-1.) Indiana “strongly
favors settlement agreements” and “it is established law 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.” Georgos v. Jackson, 790 N.E.2d
448, 453 (Ind. 2003). “Settlement agreements are governed by the same general
principles of contract law as any other agreement.” Id. The elements required to form a
valid contract in Indiana are “[a]n offer, an acceptance, consideration, and a
manifestation of mutual assent.” In re Paternity of M.F., 938 N.E.2d 1256, 1259 (Ind. Ct.
App. 2010).
In this case, all of the elements required to form a valid contract under Indiana
law were met when the parties entered into the settlement agreement. The court’s
review of the settlement agreement demonstrates that it is a facially valid and
enforceable contract. Furthermore, by failing to file a response, plaintiffs have forfeited
3

USDC IN/ND case 2:21-cv-00149-JTM-JPK document 19 filed 01/07/22 page 4 of 4

their opportunity to identify any reason why the agreement should not be enforced.
Plaintiffs agreed to dismiss this action if defendants requested that the credit reporting
agencies delete plaintiffs’ account from their reporting. RGS Financial submitted two
requests to have the tradeline associated with Mariya Skertich’s credit report deleted
from Equifax, Experian, and Trans Union. In the event that the credit reporting agencies
did not comply with the request within 90 days, plaintiffs could have contacted
defendants to have them re-submit the request. There is no evidence in the record to
suggest that defendants have not upheld their side of the agreement. Accordingly,
plaintiffs must be held to theirs.
III.

CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the court GRANTS defendants’ motion to enforce the

parties’ settlement agreement. (DE # 11.) Pursuant to that agreement, the court
DISMISSES this case with prejudice.

SO ORDERED.
Date: January 7, 2022
s/James T. Moody
JUDGE JAMES T. MOODY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4