Nooruddin v. Comerica Incorporated
Filing
19
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER denying 13 Motion for Settlement; denying 18 Motion to Strike. See Order for details. Signed by District Judge Eric F. Melgren on 4/5/2012. (cm)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
MANSOOR NOORUDDIN,
Plaintiff,
vs.
Case No. 11-1188-EFM
COMERICA INCORPORATED,
Defendant.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Settlement agreements between parties are enforceable so long as the parties had a meeting
of the minds as to all essential terms. Defendant Comerica Incorporated seeks the Court’s
enforcement of an alleged settlement agreement between the parties. Plaintiff Mansoor Nooruddin
argues that Defendant’s response did not mirror Plaintiff’s offer but was instead a counteroffer so
there was no agreement between the parties. The Court finds that there was no meeting of the minds,
and therefore no settlement agreement. For that reason, the Court denies Defendant’s Motion to
Enforce Settlement Agreement (Doc. 13).
I. Factual and Procedural Background
On July 15, 2011, Plaintiff filed suit, asserting claims under the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act and the Fair Credit Reporting Act and an intentional infliction of emotional distress
claim. Defendant sought dismissal of Plaintiff’s claims, and Plaintiff failed to file a response. The
Court issued an Order on November 16, 2011, that dismissed Plaintiff’s intentional infliction of
emotional distress claim but left the two statutory claims.
Approximately five days later, Plaintiff’s counsel, on behalf of Plaintiff, sent Defendant’s
counsel correspondence. The letter provided:
My client is willing to settle the above referenced matter by paying your
client an amount of $832.00, representing the disputed ‘overdraft charges,’ in
exchange for your client taking the necessary steps to remove the negative
information submitted to the reporting agencies that prevent him from opening a
checking account with his institution of choice. Each party shall be responsible for
their own legal fees and costs.
This offer is not an admission by the Plaintiff that the “overdraft charges”
were properly assessed against my client.
On December 8, 2011, Defendant’s counsel sent return correspondence to Plaintiff’s counsel.
Defendant’s correspondence stated:
We are in receipt of your correspondence dated November 21, 2011
containing a settlement offer [from] Mansoor Nooruddin and forwarded the same to
our client for its consideration. Our client is willing to accept the sum of $832.00 and
a dismissal of the above-referenced matter with prejudice in exchange for our client
indicating that the account is “Paid Satisfied.”
Please submit certified funds payable to Comerica Bank . . . by close of
business on December 16, 2011. If you have any questions or want to discuss this
further, please contact me.
Defendant’s counsel then sent Plaintiff’s counsel a follow-up email on December 16, 2011
referencing the fact that Defendant had accepted Plaintiff’s settlement offer and requested the status
of the settlement funds. That same day, Plaintiff’s counsel responded and advised that there was a
miscommunication between Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel’s staff:
Mr. Nooruddin categorically is opposed to the settlement offer. He is under
the impression that CoAmerica [sic] bank was going to pay HIM the $880 and
remove the derogatory information. The whole purpose of the lawsuit was to achieve
that goal and this settlement puts him in worse off position than he was before.
I am ready to conduct a scheduling conference per Court’s order and continue
to prepare for trial . . . .
I apologize for the error.
-2-
In January, Defendant filed this Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement. Defendant argues
that the parties reached a settlement agreement in December and that the Court should enforce that
agreement. Plaintiff’s response, entitled “Objection to Defendant’s Motion to Enforce Settlement
Agreement,” agreed with Defendant’s recitation of the facts, including the fact that Defendant
accepted Plaintiff’s settlement agreement. But Plaintiff argued that the parties did not reach an
agreement because Defendant’s acceptance did not mirror Plaintiff’s offer since Defendant, instead
of agreeing to remove the negative information from the credit reporting agencies, only agreed to
indicate that Plaintiff’s account was “Paid Satisfied.” Thus, Plaintiff contends that Defendant’s
response was a counter-offer that Plaintiff did not accept. Defendant filed a Motion to Strike
Plaintiff’s Objection, or in the alternative, a Reply to Plaintiff’s response. The Court will address
each motion.
II. Discussion
Initially, the Court must discuss Defendant’s Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s Objection to
Defendant’s Motion to Enforce Settlement or, in the alternative, Reply in Support of Defendant’s
Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement. Defendant asserts that it brings its motion pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f) and that the Court should strike Plaintiff’s Objection because
(1) when Plaintiff agreed to Defendant’s recitation of the facts as uncontroverted, Plaintiff admitted
that Defendant accepted the settlement offer, and (2) due to this admission, the Court should bar
Plaintiff from asserting the defense that Defendant’s correspondence was a counter-offer.
Rule 12(f) provides that the Court “may strike from a pleading an insufficient defense or any
redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter.” Rule 12(f) is directed to material
-3-
contained in pleadings. Plaintiff’s response is not a pleading.1 “The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
do not provide for motions to strike motions or memoranda.”2 Defendant’s motion to strike is
without authority. Accordingly, the Court denies Defendant’s Motion to Strike. The Court, however,
will consider the document as Defendant’s reply.
With regard to Defendant’s Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement, the parties dispute
whether they entered into an agreement because they disagree as to whether Defendant’s response
to Plaintiff was an acceptance or a counter-offer. “A trial court has the power to summarily enforce
a settlement agreement between the parties to a case which is still pending in that court.”3 Because
a settlement agreement is a contract, state law generally governs whether that settlement agreement
is binding.4 To form a binding contract, there must be a meeting of the minds between the parties
as to all essential terms.5 A meeting of the minds requires a fair understanding between the parties
accompanied with mutual consent.6 “[T]he evidence must show with reasonable definiteness that
the minds of the parties met upon the same matter and agreed upon the terms of the contract.”7
With respect to an offer and acceptance of an offer, “a communicated offer creates a power
to accept the offer that is made, and only that offer. Any expression of assent that changes the terms
1
See Fed. R. Civ. P. 7(a) (pleadings include complaint, answer, answer to counterclaim, answer to crossclaim,
third-party complaint and third-party answer).
2
See Phillips v. Martin, 2007 WL 4139646, at *1 (D. Kan. Nov. 16, 2007); see also Searcy v. Soc. Sec. Admin.,
1992 WL 43490, at *2 (10th Cir. Mar. 2, 1992).
3
Lowery v. Cty. of Riley, 738 F. Supp. 2d 1159, 1167-68 (D. Kan. 2010) (citing Shoels v. Klebold, 375 F.3d
1054, 1060 (10th Cir. 2004) and United States v. Hardage, 982 F.2d 1491, 1496 (10th Cir. 1993)).
4
See Shoels, 375 F.3d at 1060.
5
Albers v. Nelson, 248 Kan. 575, 580, 809 P.2d 1194, 1198 (1991).
6
See Steele v. Harrison, 220 Kan. 422, 428, 552 P.2d 957, 962 (1976).
7
Id. (citations omitted).
-4-
of the offer in any material respect may be operative as a counter-offer, but it is not an acceptance
and constitutes no contract.”8 Thus, no contract will exist between the parties until the counteroffer
is accepted by the original offeree.9
Plaintiff offered to settle this case by paying Defendant an amount of $832.00 in exchange
for Defendant “taking the necessary steps to remove the negative information submitted to the
reporting agencies” that prevents Plaintiff from opening a checking account. Defendant stated that
it was willing to accept the sum of $832.00 and a dismissal of the case with prejudice in exchange
for Defendant “indicating that the account is ‘Paid Satisfied.’ ”
Defendant argues that the parties entered into an enforceable settlement agreement because
Defendant agreed to the amount of Plaintiff’s settlement offer and agreed to report to reporting
agencies that the account was “Paid Satisfied.” Plaintiff contends that Defendant’s response was a
counter-offer because “Paid Satisfied” did not mirror Defendant’s request for Defendant to remove
negative information submitted to reporting agencies.10
The Court finds that Defendant’s response was a counter-offer. “Paid Satisfied” does not
reflect Plaintiff’s term requesting Defendant to take the necessary steps to remove negative
information submitted to reporting agencies regarding Plaintiff’s account. Defendant’s response was
a material change to Plaintiff’s terms because Defendant did not indicate that it would inform
reporting agencies of the “Paid Satisfied.” Nor is it apparent that an indication of “Paid Satisfied,”
8
Id.
9
Id.
10
In Plaintiff’s reply to Defendant’s request for payment of the alleged settlement funds, Plaintiff’s counsel
indicated that there had been a miscommunication between Plaintiff’s counsel and Plaintiff, and Plaintiff believed that
Defendant was going to pay him the $832, rather than Plaintiff paying Defendant. Plaintiff, however, does not assert an
argument relating to miscommunication or mistake to this Court.
-5-
even if reported to the credit agencies, is comparable to removing the negative information that
Plaintiff at one time had an account deficiency. Furthermore, neither party argued to the Court that
Defendant’s counter-offer included an additional term that the case be dismissed with prejudice. The
dismissal of the case with prejudice is a material term not agreed upon by Plaintiff. Based upon the
above facts, the Court concludes that the parties did not have a settlement agreement because the
parties did not have a meeting of the minds as to all essential terms.
IT IS ACCORDINGLY ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Enforce Settlement
Agreement (Doc. 13) is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s Objection to
Defendant’s Motion to Enforce Settlement (Doc. 18) is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated this 5th day of April, 2012.
ERIC F. MELGEN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
-6-
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?