Goree v. City of Verona et al

Filing 106

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS, overruling 99 Objection, granting 56 Motion to Reopen Case, denying 58 Motion to Enforce Settlement. Access restriction placed on Report and Recommendation 85 is removed. Signed by District Judge Sharion Aycock on 9/25/2020. (jtm)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
ABERDEEN DIVISION
STEPHANIE GOREE

PLAINTIFF

V.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:17-cv-93-SA-DAS

CITY OF VERONA, et al.

DEFENDANTS
ORDER

After being advised that the parties had reached a settlement resolving all claims asserted
by the Plaintiff in this action, on November 22, 2019, this Court entered an Order [55] closing the
case and dismissing all claims without prejudice. In the Order [55], the Court specifically retained
jurisdiction to reopen the case in the event that the settlement was not completed.
On December 10, 2019, the Plaintiff filed a Motion to Reopen the Case [56] on the basis
that the parties’ settlement was not completed. The Defendants thereafter filed a Motion to Enforce
Settlement [58]. After the Plaintiff retained new counsel, Magistrate Judge Sanders held a hearing
on both Motions [56, 58] on August 6, 2020. Magistrate Judge Sanders then entered a Report and
Recommendation [85] on August 10, 2020. In the Report and Recommendation [85], Magistrate
Judge Sanders recommended that the Plaintiff’s Motion [56] be granted and the Defendants’
Motion [58] be denied. Magistrate Judge Sanders recommended that the case be reopened.
On September 4, 2020, the Defendants filed an Objection [99] to the Report and
Recommendation, arguing that the parties entered into a binding settlement agreement. The
Defendants contend that the agreement should be enforced and that the case should not be placed
back on the Court’s active docket.

Standard of Review
When a party files an objection to a Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, the
Court applies a de novo standard of review. Ross v. Epps, 2015 WL 5772196 at *1 (N.D. Miss.
Sept. 30, 2015) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)); see also Wright v. Jackson Rental Properties, Inc.,
2018 WL 287865 (N.D. Miss. Jan. 4, 2018) (applying de novo standard in this context). “The Court
is not required, however, to reiterate the findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge[.]”
Saulsberry v. Astrue, 2013 WL 5349147 at *1 (N.D. Miss. Sept. 23, 2013) (citing Koetting v.
Thompson, 995 F.2d 37, 40 (5th Cir. 1993)).
Analysis and Discussion
In their Objection [99], the Defendants assert that the Magistrate Judge incorrectly held
that the settlement of the federal action was contingent upon the settlement of the Plaintiff’s
workers’ compensation claim. The Defendants specifically state that “[n]othing in the email
exchanges between counsel says anything about ‘contingencies’ or ‘preconditions.’ The
Magistrate Judge did not conclude otherwise but nonetheless found a contingency to be implied
based on an appeal to supposed ‘common sense’ and his familiarity with Goree’s former counsel,
Victor Fleitas. . . This type of analysis was inappropriate because the only thing that should have
guided the Magistrate Judge’s inquiry was whether the correspondence between the parties was
ambiguous on the question of whether a contingency existed.” [100]. In summary, the Defendants
assert that “[t]he bottom line is that courts are not supposed to read unexpressed contingencies into
settlements.” Id.
The Court will not reiterate all findings and conclusions set forth by Magistrate Judge
Sanders in the Report and Recommendations. See Saulsbery, 2013 WL 5349147 at *1. However,
the Court does specifically find, despite the Defendants’ assertions otherwise, that Magistrate

2

Judge Sanders correctly applied the applicable law in this case. In the Court’s view, the
Defendants, through their present argument, seek to enforce a settlement which they know was
never intended by the Plaintiff. The Court declines to adopt such a harsh result. The Magistrate
Judge’s Report and Recommendation [85] will be adopted in full.
Conclusion
The Defendants’ Objection [99] is OVERRULED. The Magistrate Judge’s Report and
Recommendation is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED IN FULL. The Plaintiff’s Motion to Reopen
Case [56] is GRANTED, and the Defendants’ Motion to Enforce Settlement [58] is DENIED.
The Clerk of Court is directed to remove the access restriction which was previously placed on
the Report and Recommendation [85]. The case shall be reinstated on the active docket.
SO ORDERED, this the 25th day of September, 2020.

/s/ Sharion Aycock
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3