Schlottman v. United States

Filing 45

ORDER Denying Richard Wagner, Jr.'s 40 Motion to Extend Time for Payment. Signed by District Judge Matthew F. Leitman. (HMon)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION JUDI M. SCHLOTTMAN, Plaintiff, Case No. 18-cv-10110 Hon. Matthew F. Leitman v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al., Defendant. __________________________________________________________________/ ORDER DENYING RICHARD WAGNER, JR.’S MOTION TO EXTEND TIME FOR PAYMENT (ECF No. 40) On August 13, 2020, Judi Schlottman and Richard L. Wagner, Jr. entered into a settlement agreement with the United States of America in which Schlottmann and Wagner agreed to pay the United States $60,000.00. The payment was supposed to be made within 90 days. On October 9, 2020, Wagner filed a motion in which he asked the Court to extend the time for him to pay his portion of the settlement amount. (See Mot., ECF No. 40.) The Court is not aware of any authority under which it may unilaterally change the terms of a settlement agreement that the parties freely negotiated and executed. And while the Court is sympathetic to Wagner’s financial situation, the time for Wagner to pay the amount he owes has repeatedly been extended. Indeed, Wagner’s motion has been pending for nearly eight months, and he has not had to pay the United States during that time. Simply put, Wagner is not entitled to any 1 further extension of time to pay the amount due and owing under the settlement agreement. For all of these reasons, Wagner’s motion (ECF No. 40) is DENIED. Dated: May 28, 2021 s/Matthew F. Leitman MATTHEW F. LEITMAN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the parties and/or counsel of record on May 28, 2021, by electronic means and/or ordinary mail. s/Holly A. Monda Case Manager (810) 341-9764  2

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?