Zapp v. Trott & Trott
Filing
44
OPINION and ORDER Granting Defendant's 38 Motion to Dismiss in Accordance with Agreed-upon Settlement - Signed by District Judge Judith E. Levy. (FMos)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
Jennifer L. Zapp,
Plaintiff,
Case No. 13-cv-12998
Hon. Judith E. Levy
Mag. Judge Mona K. Majzoub
v.
Trott & Trott, P.C.,
Defendant.
________________________________/
OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S
MOTION TO DISMISS IN ACCORDANCE WITH
AGREED-UPON SETTLEMENT [38]
This is a consumer credit case. Pending are plaintiff’s counsel’s
motion to withdraw (Dkt. 37) and defendant’s cross-motion to dismiss
this case in accordance with an agreed-upon settlement. (Dkt. 38.)
I.
Background
Plaintiff filed suit against defendant on July 12, 2013, alleging a
violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1692 et
seq. with respect to herself, as well as raising the potential for a class
action suit on behalf of those similarly situated. (Dkt. 1.)
1
On March 10, 2014, the parties reached a tentative settlement
agreement, the terms of which included a dismissal of all claims in
exchange for $15,000. On March 11, 2014, the parties filed a notice of
settlement with the Court, and stated that they would stipulate to
dismissal within 14 days. (Dkt. 35.)
The parties then spent the next few weeks attempting to iron out
the details of the settlement. On March 31, 2014, plaintiff’s counsel
sent a final redlined version of the settlement agreement to defendant.
Defendant agreed to the final version later that day. Plaintiff refused
to sign the agreed-upon settlement, and four days later, on April 3,
2014, plaintiff’s counsel filed a motion to withdraw based on a
breakdown in the attorney-client relationship.
II.
Analysis
The parties agree that there is an enforceable settlement
agreement. (See Dkt. 38; Dkt. 40 at 11 (“Defendant is correct in its
beliefs regarding this final settlement.”).) This Court has “broad,
inherent authority and equitable power . . . to enforce an agreement in
settlement of litigation pending before it[.]” Bostick Foundry v.
Lindberg, 797 F.2d 280, 282-84 (6th Cir. 1986). “Once concluded,
2
a settlement agreement is as binding, conclusive, and final as if it had
been incorporated into a judgment.” Id. at 283.
Plaintiff has informed the Court that she wishes to terminate her
relationship with her counsel, and her counsel has filed a motion to
withdraw. Because plaintiff was represented by counsel with
settlement authority at the time settlement was reached, she is bound
both by the actions of her counsel and the defendant’s reliance on the
settlement agreement into which she entered. See, e.g., Pugno v. Bank
of Am., 11-cv-01159, 2013 WL 791878, at *1 (W.D. Mich. Jan. 30, 2013).
There is no dispute as to whether a settlement agreement exists,
or as to any of the material terms of that agreement. There is no
dispute that the settlement agreement is binding on both parties, and
that the settlement agreement contemplates dismissal of the instant
claims against defendant in exchange for monetary and other
consideration. Accordingly, the Court will enforce the settlement
agreement and dismiss the case.
III.
Conclusion
For the reasons set forth above, the Court ORDERS THAT:
Plaintiff’s complaint is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE; and
3
Plaintiff’s counsel’s motion to withdraw is DENIED AS MOOT.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: July 11, 2014
Ann Arbor, Michigan
s/Judith E. Levy
JUDITH E. LEVY
United States District Judge
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned certifies that the foregoing document was served
upon counsel of record and any unrepresented parties via the Court=s
ECF System to their respective email or First Class U.S. mail addresses
disclosed on the Notice of Electronic Filing on July 11, 2014.
s/Felicia M. Moses
FELICIA M. MOSES
Case Manager
4
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?