Wilkins v. Anadarko Industries, L.L.C.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendants motion to enforce settlement agreement [Doc. # 19] is granted. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff shall have until September 27, 2013 to (1) execute a release of all claims against the de fendant and (2) execute and file a stipulation for dismissal of this action with prejudice. If plaintiff fails to comply with this order, the Court will dismiss this action with prejudice and without further notice to plaintiff. IT IS FURTHER ORDER ED that upon plaintiffs execution of the release and stipulation for dismissal, the defendant shall pay to plaintiff the agreed- upon settlement amount. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the defendant shall have until October 4, 2013, to submit a verified statement of attorneys fees and costs incurred in bringing the motion to enforce settlement. ( Dismissal Paper(s) due by 9/27/2013, Response to Court due by 10/4/2013.). Signed by District Judge Carol E. Jackson on 9/20/2013. (KMS)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
RAYBURN WILKINS, JR.,
ANADARKO INDUSTRIES, L.L.C.,
Case No. 4:13-CV-908 (CEJ)
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on defendant’s motion to enforce a settlement
agreement. Plaintiff has filed a memorandum in opposition, and the issues have been
On May 13, 2013, plaintiff filed this action against defendant pursuant to Title
VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e, et seq., the Americans with
Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101, et seq., and the Rehabilitation Act of
1973, §§ 701, et seq., alleging discrimination based on race, color, gender, and
disability. Defendant filed an answer on June 18, 2013. The Court scheduled a Rule 16
conference and directed the parties to file a joint proposed scheduling order. On July
30, 2013, the Court canceled the Rule 16 conference due to the parties failure to file
a scheduling plan. On July 31, 2013, the Court issued a case management order. On
September 4, 2013, defendant filed the instant motion to enforce settlement
agreement and to recover attorneys’ fees incurred by filing this motion.
In its motion, defendant explains that a joint scheduling plan was not submitted
to the Court because a settlement agreement had been reached between the parties.
The exhibits attached to defendant’s motion show that on July 30, 2013, defendant’s
counsel sent plaintiff’s counsel a settlement agreement for signature. On August 5,
2013, plaintiff’s counsel requested that the agreement be changed to reflect that
defendant would respond to future employment inquires with a neutral reference. On
the same day, the agreement was adjusted to reflect this request. On August 6, 2013,
plaintiff’s counsel wrote to defendant’s counsel stating that plaintiff requested that the
wording of paragraph 12 be adjusted. On the same day, defendant’s counsel adjusted
the agreement to reflect plaintiff’s request. On August 7, 2013, plaintiff’s counsel
informed defendant’s counsel that plaintiff no longer wished to sign the agreement and
that he had been discharged as plaintiff’s attorney.
Plaintiff argues that these e-mail exchanges evidence negotiations, but not a
final agreement to settle. Plaintiff contends that he did not review the drafts and did
not approve of them. In reply, defendant submits an affidavit from plaintiff’s former
counsel. The affidavit states that plaintiff “retained [him] to negotiate with Defendant
. . . to reach a settlement in this matter;” that the parties “had reached a Settlement
Agreement to fully settle the claims;” and that plaintiff “agreed to accept the terms of
the Agreement and authorized [him] to accept the terms of the Agreement on his
The Court has the inherent power to enforce a settlement agreement entered
into by the parties in a pending case. Barry v. Barry, 172 F.3d 1011, 1013 (8th Cir.
1999). Settlement agreements are governed by contract law. Chaganti & Associates
v. Nowotny, 470 F.3d 1215, 1221 (8th Cir. 2006). In order for a settlement agreement
to be enforceable, the parties must have reached agreement on the essential terms
of the deal. Sheng v. Starkey Laboratories, Inc., 117 F.3d 1081, 1083 (8th Cir. 1997).
“Settlement agreements that do not expressly resolve ancillary issues can,
nevertheless, be enforceable.” Id. In determining whether an unresolved issue is
“material” or “ancillary,” the court looks to the intent of the parties. Worthy v.
McKesson Corp., 756 F.2d 1370, 1372 (8th Cir. 1985). The party requesting
enforcement of a settlement agreement has the burden of proving its claim for relief
by clear, convincing, and satisfactory evidence. Visiting Nurse Assoc., St. Louis v. VNA
Healthcare, Inc., 347 F.3d 1052, 1053 (8th Cir. 2003) (citations omitted).
Upon review of the record, the Court concludes that the parties reached an
enforceable settlement agreement. First, the parties did not submit a joint scheduling
plan as directed by the Court because of their belief that a settlement had been
reached. Second, the parties agreed to the essential terms of the contract, i.e. that the
plaintiff would dismiss the case in exchange for the defendant’s payment of a certain
amount. This amount has not been disclosed to the Court because of a confidentiality
clause in the settlement agreement. Third, the correspondence between the attorneys
reflect that the parties intended to be bound by this agreement, but that ancillary
issues needed to be addressed before execution, i.e. the addition of a provision
regarding a neutral reference and the rewording of a sentence. See Johnson v.
Dobson, 230 F.3d 1363 (8th Cir. 2000) (The “parties entered into a valid, oral, globalsettlement agreement . . . notwithstanding the ancillary adjustment of the payment
schedule); compare to Church Mutual Insurance Co. v. Copenhaven, 2011 WL 704575
(E.D. Ark. Feb. 22, 2011) (Court found that a set of e-mail exchanges between counsel
did not amount to a settlement agreement because a “vital part of the settlement
agreement” was missing). Fourth, plaintiff’s argument that he did not review the
agreement is contradicted by the evidence presented by defendant. The August 6,
2013 email reflects that plaintiff himself requested a specific adjustment, which shows
that plaintiff was given an opportunity to review the agreement. Lastly, plaintiff’s
former attorney states in an affidavit that plaintiff retained him to negotiate a
settlement and that he did negotiate a settlement which plaintiff authorized. It is wellestablished that an attorney may enter into a settlement agreement on behalf of a
client. Harris v. Ark. State Highway & Transp. Dep’t, 437 F.3d 749 (8th Cir. 2006). A
client bears a “heavy burden” when attempting to prove that the attorney was not
authorized to enter into a settlement agreement. Id. at 751. Plaintiff has not provided
any evidence showing that his former attorney did not have authority to enter into the
settlement agreement at issue here.
For the reasons discussed above, the Court concludes that defendant is entitled
to enforcement of the settlement agreement and is entitled to recover the reasonable
costs and attorneys’ fees incurred in filing this motion.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendant’s motion to enforce settlement
agreement [Doc. # 19] is granted.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff shall have until September 27, 2013
to (1) execute a release of all claims against the defendant and (2) execute and file a
stipulation for dismissal of this action with prejudice. If plaintiff fails to comply
with this order, the Court will dismiss this action with prejudice and without
further notice to plaintiff.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that upon plaintiff’s execution of the release and
stipulation for dismissal, the defendant shall pay to plaintiff the agreed-upon
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the defendant shall have until October 4,
2013, to submit a verified statement of attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in bringing
the motion to enforce settlement.
CAROL E. JACKSON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated this 20th day of September, 2013.
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?