Robbe v. Webster University

Filing 98

OPINION MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiffs motion to enforce settlement is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendants motion to enforce the settlement agreement is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that counsel shall file, within thirty (30) days of the date of this order unless an extension is granted, a stipulation for dismissal, a motion for leave to voluntarily dismiss, or a proposed consent judgment. Failure to comply timely with this order will result in the dismissal of this action with prejudice. (Dismissal Paper(s) due by 5/10/2017.) Signed by District Judge Henry Edward Autrey on 4/10/17. (KJS)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
LILY ROBBE,
Plaintiff,
v.
WEBSTER UNIVERSITY,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 4:14CV1223 HEA

OPINION, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on cross motions to enforce the parties’
settlement agreement. Each party opposes the other’s motion. The Court
conducted a hearing on December 13, 2016. For the following reasons, the Court
will grant defendant’s motion and deny plaintiff’s motion.
Background
On July 8, 2014, plaintiff filed a Complaint alleging violations of the
Missouri Merchandising Practices Act. The claims arise out of plaintiff’s
participation in Defendant’s Master’s Degree Program in the Department of
International Relations at Defendant’s campus in Geneva, Switzerland.
Pursuant to this Court’s Order, the parties attended mediation on January 25,
2016. Mediation continued through the morning of January 26, 2016. Both sides
were represented by counsel. Both sides agree that the parties engaged in

mediation of the suit, and reached an agreement to resolve all issues in the suit. In
her motion to enforce the settlement agreement, plaintiff argues that the term
agreement fails to include certain items she claims were part of the settlement.
The parties agreed upon a Term Sheet, which would be formalized in a
typewritten settlement agreement. The mediator advised the Court that this action
had been settled. The Court vacated the trial setting, denied without prejudice any
pending motions, and ordered the parties to file a stipulation for dismissal, a
motion for leave to voluntarily dismiss, or a proposed consent judgment.
Plaintiff’s counsel has withdrawn and plaintiff is now proceeding pro se.
Apparently, plaintiff had a change of heart. Plaintiff states that some of the items
which were agreed to are not part of the Term Sheet. Defendant submits the Term
Sheet as the parties’ agreement because plaintiff continued to attempt to add
language in the formal settlement agreement that defendant submitted to her.
Discussion
“‘The district court has inherent power to enforce a settlement agreement as
a matter of law when the terms are unambiguous,’ and in a diversity case, the
settlement agreement is construed according to state law. Barry v. Barry, 172 F.3d
1011, 1013 (8th Cir. 1999). In Missouri, interpreting a settlement or release
agreement is a question of law, and the agreement is ‘interpreted according to the
same principles that govern the interpretation of any other type of contract.’ Parks
2

v. MBNA Am. Bank, 204 S.W.3d 305, 311 (Mo. Ct. App. 2006). Courts must
‘ascertain the intention of the parties and . . . give effect to that intention.’ Id.
(internal marks omitted).”’ Harper Enters., Inc. v. Aprilia World Service USA, Inc.,
270 F. App’x 458, 460 (8th Cir. 2008). (unpublished per curiam). “Additionally, in
Missouri, the party attacking a release or settlement ‘bears the burden of showing
that the contract he has made is tainted with invalidity, either by fraud practiced
upon him or by a mutual mistake under which both parties acted.’ Cameron v.
Norfolk & W. Ry., 891 S.W.2d 495, 499 (Mo. Ct. App. 1994).” Id.
Here, both parties seem to agree that they entered into a valid and
enforceable settlement agreement. Plaintiff’s motion to enforce the agreement
states some of the terms on which the parties agreed are absent from the Term
Sheet.
Plaintiff signed the Term Sheet and she has not alleged any facts that would
require the Court to rescind the agreement. She has not proved the agreement was
“tainted with invalidity.” Harper Enters., Inc., 270 F. App’x at 600. Nor has she
presented any evidence of any fraud or mistake. Her reasons for attempting to back
out of the settlement agreement is that she wants to add certain obligations to the
settlement of which the parties did not agree.
Based on defendants’ motion and the exhibits thereto (filed under seal), the
Court finds the parties entered into a valid settlement agreement under Missouri
3

law. See Bath Junkie Branson, LLC v. Bath Junkie, Inc., 528 F.3d 556, 561 (8th
Cir. 2008). The parties to the agreement were competent, there was legal
consideration, mutuality of agreement, and mutuality of obligation. Id.
Plaintiff has not met her burden to rescind the Term Sheet and her motion
will be denied. The Court will grant defendants’ motion to enforce the settlement
agreement.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion to enforce settlement is
DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendants’ motion to enforce the
settlement agreement is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that counsel shall file, within thirty (30)
days of the date of this order unless an extension is granted, a stipulation for
dismissal, a motion for leave to voluntarily dismiss, or a proposed consent
judgment. Failure to comply timely with this order will result in the dismissal
of this action with prejudice.
Dated this 10th day of April, 2017.

__________________________________
HENRY EDWARD AUTREY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
4