United States of America v. Currency $19,315.18 From Bank of America Account #237033591854

Filing 28

ORDER Granting 23 Plaintiff's Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement. Signed by District Judge Victoria A. Roberts. (LVer)

Case 2:18-cv-11307-VAR-EAS ECF No. 28, PageID.257 Filed 01/30/23 Page 1 of 7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 18-11307
Honorable Victoria A. Roberts

Currency $19,315.18 from Bank of
America Account #: 237033591854,
Defendant.
______________________________/
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO ENFORCE
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
I.

INTRODUCTION
The Government moves to enforce the settlement agreement entered

on October 6th, 2022 with Claimant Edrea Mann. [ECF No.23]. The Court
GRANTS the motion.
II.

BACKGROUND
This case stems from a criminal healthcare fraud investigation

involving businesses owned by Mann’s family. During its investigation, the
Government filed a complaint alleging that the defendant in rem was
subject to forfeiture. Mann filed a claim to the property.

1

Case 2:18-cv-11307-VAR-EAS ECF No. 28, PageID.258 Filed 01/30/23 Page 2 of 7

On September 21, 2018, this Court —on stipulation of parties—
issued an order to close this case for administrative purposes. The ruling
allowed either party to reopen the case if the criminal or civil forfeiture
investigation resolved. On February 23, 2022, the Government moved to
reopen because the criminal investigation concluded. The Court granted
that motion and referred parties to a settlement conference.
The parties engaged in settlement discussions with Magistrate Judge
Elizabeth A. Stafford. Mann fired her attorney and appeared at the
settlement conference pro se. After two hours, the parties reached
agreement. Under the arrangement, the Government would return the
seized $19,315.18 to Mann. The Government also agreed to give Mann
search warrants related to the now-completed criminal investigation. Mann
retained her right to seek attorney fees.
Following the conference, the Government gave Mann the search
warrants and emailed a proposed stipulated order. It included the material
terms agreed upon during settlement discussions. Mann refuses to sign it.
Mann wants the money, but now she asks for an evidentiary hearing
on Judge Stafford’s impartiality and whether she is entitled to get to “the
truth” underlying the Government’s investigation of her family.

2

Case 2:18-cv-11307-VAR-EAS ECF No. 28, PageID.259 Filed 01/30/23 Page 3 of 7

III.

ANALYSIS
The Government moves the Court to enforce the settlement

agreement. Mann says it is unenforceable and void because: (1) there are
material facts in dispute, and the Court must hold an evidentiary hearing
before enforcing the agreement; (2) the agreement is a contract, but there
was no consideration, making the agreement unenforceable; (3) Magistrate
Judge Stafford should not have been involved in the settlement discussions
because she signed warrants in the criminal investigation; (4) her prior
counsel took unauthorized actions; (5) the Government used false
pretenses to get her to settle and; (6) she has been denied due process.
The Court is mindful of its duty to “liberally construe the briefs of pro
se litigants” and apply “less stringent standards” than to parties represented
by counsel. Bouyer v. Simon, 22 Fed.Appx. 611, 612 (6th Cir. 2001).
However, none of Mann’s arguments survives, even under this less
stringent standard.
A. The Agreement is Enforceable
Courts retain the inherent power to “enforce agreements entered in
settlement of litigation pending before them.” Aro Corp. v. Allied Witan Co.,
531 F.2d 1368, 1371 (6th Cir. 1976). Before enforcing a settlement

3

Case 2:18-cv-11307-VAR-EAS ECF No. 28, PageID.260 Filed 01/30/23 Page 4 of 7

agreement, a district court must conclude that the parties agreed on all
material terms. Brock v. Scheuner Corp., 841 F.2d 151, 154 (6th Cir.1988).
Once the district court finds an agreement on the material terms, it must
enforce them and may not alter them. Id.
Mann accepts the court’s power to enforce agreements. However,
she says that because there are contested material facts, this Court must
first hold an evidentiary hearing. She primarily relies on the Sixth Circuit’s
decision in Kukla v. Nat'l Distillers Prod. Co., 483 F.2d 619, 622 (6th Cir.
1973). Her reliance on Kukla is misplaced.
The issue in Kukla was whether a settlement agreement even
existed. The parties disagreed about settling, and the court had no sworn
statements or a record of the agreement to rely upon. Rather than accept
one party’s word over the other, the Sixth Circuit held that when material
facts “concerning the existence of an agreement to settle are in dispute,”
enforcing the alleged agreement without a hearing is improper. Id. at 622
(emphasis added). Here, an agreement was entered into and is a matter of
record. [ECF No. 20].
The agreement did not include an evidentiary hearing, discovery, or
unsealing criminal records. The agreement was not contingent on Mann’s
review of the warrants. Mann and the Government agreed to enter a
4

Case 2:18-cv-11307-VAR-EAS ECF No. 28, PageID.261 Filed 01/30/23 Page 5 of 7

stipulation dismissing the Government’s forfeiture case, returning all seized
monies to Mann, and giving Mann the warrants she requested. [ECF No.
20, PageID.89-90]. Magistrate Judge Stafford asked Mann if these terms
were correct. Mann affirmed. The Court will enforce.
A. Mann’s Remaining Contentions
The other issues Mann raises are unavailing. She says there was no
consideration, so the agreement is unenforceable under contract law. She
is incorrect.
Under Michigan law, consideration is present when there is a “benefit
on one side, or a detriment suffered, or a service done on the other.”
Plastray Corp. v. Cole, 324 Mich. 433, 440, 37 N.W.2d 162 (1949). Mann’s
benefit is the Government’s promise to release $19,315.18 to her and give
her search warrants from the criminal investigation. She can also seek
attorney fees.
Next, Mann suggests that Magistrate Judge Stafford should have
recused herself because she approved search warrants in the criminal
investigation. While a judge should recuse herself in any proceeding where
her impartiality might be reasonably questioned, Hughes v. United States,
899 F.2d 1495, 1501 (6th Cir. 1990), it is unreasonable to question Judge
Stafford’s impartiality simply because she approved warrants. Judicial
5

Case 2:18-cv-11307-VAR-EAS ECF No. 28, PageID.262 Filed 01/30/23 Page 6 of 7

rulings seldom serve as a valid basis for recusal. Amadasu v. Mercy
Franciscan Hosp., 515 F.3d 528, 530 (6th Cir. 2008). Just because
Magistrate Judge Stafford signed warrants for emails—years ago, in a case
involving multiple search warrants—does not mean she should have
recused herself from presiding over settlement discussions.
Third, Mann claims that the Government had an unconscionable
advantage over her during settlement discussions because she proceeded
pro se. Many choose to represent themselves. And an imbalance in power
or sophistication alone does not create an unconscionable advantage.
Allen v. Michigan Bell Tel. Co., 18 Mich.App. 632, 637, 171 N.W.2d 689
(1969).
To be deemed unconscionable under Michigan law, the agreement
needs to give the weaker party no realistic alternative but to accept the
terms. Id. Those terms must also be substantively unreasonable. Id. Mann
offers no evidence that suggests that the Government forced her to accept
the terms of the settlement. Further, the terms of the settlement are not
unreasonable. To the contrary, they are reasonable and advantageous to
Mann.
Also, Mann claims her attorney agreed to administratively close the
case without her consent. That closing is not relevant to this settlement.
6

Case 2:18-cv-11307-VAR-EAS ECF No. 28, PageID.263 Filed 01/30/23 Page 7 of 7

Finally, Mann claims the Government obtained her agreement to
settle under false pretenses and denied her due process. She offers no
facts to support these claims.
CONCLUSION
The Court GRANTS the Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement.
[ECF No. 23]. The Court orders Mann to sign the Stipulation Seeking
Orders. [ECF No. 24-4].
IT IS ORDERED.
s/ Victoria A. Roberts
Victoria A. Roberts
United States District Judge
Dated: January 30, 2023

7