Wilson et al v. Richardson

Filing 24

ORDER granting 22 Motion for Attorney Fees and costs; plaintiffs shall furnish the Court with a proposed Judgment in the amount of $25,000, incorporating reasonable attorneys' fees in the amount of $5,000, plus expenses in the amount of $202, together with the appropriate rate of post-judgment interest as provided by law. Signed by Honorable David C. Bramlette, III on 12/14/2016 (ECW)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
WESTERN DIVISION
ROBERT H. WILSON,
SUE ELLEN OBERG,
AND PAULETTE BELL

PLAINTIFFS

VS.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:15-cv-65(DCB)(MTP)

JAMES RICHARDSON

DEFENDANT
ORDER

This cause is before the Court on the plaintiffs’ motion for
attorneys’ fees and expenses

(docket entry 22), to which no

response has been filed by the defendant.
considered

the

motion,

and

having

carefully

Having carefully
considered

the

arguments of plaintiffs’ counsel and the applicable law, the Court
finds as follows:
At a settlement conference held on February 24, 2016, before
Magistrate Judge Michael T. Parker, the parties agreed to dismissal
of this action on condition of payment by defendant Richardson to
plaintiffs in the amount of $25,000 within 14 days from entry of
the Order of Dismissal.

The terms of the Order of Dismissal

(incorporating settlement agreement) provide:
If any party fails to comply with the terms of this
settlement agreed to by all parties, any aggrieved party
may move to reopen the case for enforcement of the
settlement agreement, and if successful, all additional
attorneys’ fees and costs from this date shall be awarded
such aggrieved party or parties against the party failing
to comply with the agreement.
Order of Dismissal, p. 1. The Order also recites that “[t]he Court

specifically
agreement.”

retains

jurisdiction

to

enforce

the

settlement

Order of Dismissal, p. 1.

Mississippi law, which applies in this diversity action,
strongly favors “settlement of disputes by agreement of the parties
and, ordinarily, [the court] will enforce the agreement which the
parties have made, absent any fraud, mistake, or overreaching.”
Chantey Music Publishing, Inc. v. Malaco, Inc., 915 So. 2d 1052,
1055 (Miss. 2005).

Settlement agreements are enforced as a matter

of contract law and “[c]ourts will not rewrite them to satisfy the
desires of either party.”

Id. at 1056.

The Fifth Circuit has long held that “‘[c]ompromises of
disputed claims are favored by the courts.’”

Mid-South Towing Co.

v. Har-Win, Inc., 733 F.2d 386, 391 (5th Cir. 1984)(quoting Cia Anon
Venezolana de Navegacion v. Harris, 374 F.2d 33, 35 (5th Cir.
1967)); see also Hastings v. Guillot, 825 So. 2d 20, 24 (Miss.
2002).

“Federal

courts

have

held

under

a

great

variety

of

circumstances that a settlement agreement once entered into cannot
be repudiated by either party and will be summarily enforced.” Cia
Anon, 374 F.2d at 35.

Consistent with these guiding principles

under federal common law, “‘a district court has inherent power to
recognize,

encourage,

and

when

necessary

enforce

settlement

agreements reached by the parties.’” Del Bosque v. AT&T Adver.,
L.P.,

441

F.

App’x

258,

260

(5th

Cir.

2011)(quoting

Schexnayder, 36 F.3d 447, 449 (5th Cir. 1994)).

2

Bell

v.

The Court has previously found that a settlement agreement was
reached by the parties at the February 24, 2016, settlement
conference, and memorialized in the February 25, 2016, Order of
Dismissal.
There

is

no

legitimate

dispute

concerning

defendant

Richardson’s failure to pay the amounts due under the settlement
agreement.

Because Richardson has breached the agreement, the

plaintiffs are entitled to enforcement of the settlement agreement,
and entitled to recover their counsel fees and other costs and
expenses

incurred

agreement.

in

Federal

attorneys’ fees.

enforcing
courts

have

the

terms

inherent

of

the

settlement

authority

to

award

In re Case, 937 F.2d 1014, 1023 (5th Cir.

1991)(citing Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32 (1991)).
In their Memorandum Brief in support of their motion for
attorneys’ fees and expenses, the plaintiffs set forth the factors
used to determine the reasonableness of attorneys’ fees (see
Mississippi Rule of Professional Conduct, 1.5), and address each of
them as well as providing case law and supporting documentation.
In conclusion, the plaintiffs request $5,000.00 as a reasonable
attorneys’ fee, $202.00 in costs, and post-judgment interest.
The Court finds that the motion is well-taken, and the
defendant does not dispute the sums requested.
Accordingly,
IT

IS

HEREBY

ORDERED

that

3

the

plaintiffs’

motion

for

attorneys’ fees and expenses (docket entry 22) is GRANTED;
FURTHER ORDERED that the plaintiffs furnish the Court with a
proposed Judgment in the amount of $25,000 for filing;
FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiffs incorporate in the proposed
Judgment

their

reasonable

attorneys’

fees

in

the

amount

of

$5,000.00, plus expenses in the amount of $202.00, together with
the appropriate rate of post-judgment interest as provided by law.
SO ORDERED, this the 14th day of December, 2016.

/s/ David Bramlette
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

4