MICHAUD v. NEXXLINX OF MAINE INC et al
ORDER re: 64 Objection ; 66 Motion for Reconsideration 70 Notice By JUDGE JON D. LEVY. (mjlt)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MAINE
KYLE D. MICHAUD
NEXXLINX OF MAINE, INC. et al.
Defendants have moved to enforce the settlement agreement they contend
was reached by the parties in March 2014. Defendants’ Joint Motion for
Enforcement of Settlement Agreement, ECF No. 43. Plaintiff opposes the motion
asserting that he was “coerced” by his former attorney to accept the settlement and
that the purported settlement was not sufficiently definite as to give rise to a
binding agreement. Plaintiff has also filed his Objection to Magistrate Judge’s
Order, ECF No. 64, and an Amended Motion for Reconsideration of Court Order,
ECF No. 66. Both of these motions relate to the court’s order entered on May 21,
2014, denying Plaintiff’s request for an in camera review of his affidavit and various
documents attached to it.
An evidentiary hearing will be required in order for the court to act on the
motion to enforce. Courts do not “summarily enforce a purported settlement
agreement if there is a genuinely disputed question of material fact regarding the
existence or the terms of that agreement.” Malave v. Carney Hosp., 170 F.3d 217,
220 (1st Cir. 1999); see also McGee v. Cartoon Newtork, Inc., 383 Fed. Appx. 12, 13
(1st Cir. 2010). Because there are such questions in this case, it is ORDERED that
this matter is referred for an evidentiary hearing and recommend decision by a
Plaintiff has filed a notice, ECF No. 70, in which he appears to concede that
the Court properly denied his earlier request for in camera review. Accordingly, the
Court finds that Plaintiff’s Objection to Magistrate Judge’s Order, ECF No. 64, and
Amended Motion for Reconsideration of Court Order, ECF No. 66, are MOOT and
the Amended Motion is ORDERED denied.
/s/ Jon D. Levy
Jon D. Levy
U.S. District Judge
Dated: June 18, 2014
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?