Roy et al v. NH Department of Corrections, Commissioner, et al
Filing
64
ORDER granting 57 Plaintiff Gosselin's motion for reconsideration; court's order enforcing settlement as to Plaintiff Gosselin, dated 2/14/2011, is vacated. So Ordered by Chief Judge Steven J. McAuliffe.(lat)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
Steven Roy, Charles Wolff,
Eric Chaplin, Joel Smith,
John Gosselin, Bruce Usher,
William Johnson, and
Prayer F. Farrow,
Plaintiffs
v.
Case No. 09-cv-75-SM
Opinion No. 2011 DNH 177
Commissioner, New Hampshire
Department of Corrections, et al.,
Defendants
O R D E R
Plaintiff, John Gosselin, moves to reconsider the court’s
order enforcing the settlement in this case as to him.
motion is necessarily granted.
That
The court’s order, dated February
14, 2011, is vacated, and defendants’ motion to enforce
settlement will, as to Gosselin, be set down for an evidentiary
hearing.
Plaintiff argues, implausibly, that he only signed the
memorandum of understanding arising from the mediation sessions
in this case because he was “coerced” by the mediator.
He adds
that, in signing, he thought that he would obtain the benefits of
a “gratuitous promise” by the defendants in settlement, without
having to give up his own causes of action, because the
memorandum of understanding did not explicitly require dismissal
of his case.
The critical points in resolving his motion, however, are
not those, but these:
1) defendants expressly do not invoke
plaintiff’s procedural default in failing to timely object to the
motion to enforce settlement; 2) plaintiff, however
inarticulately, claims that he did not authorize his legal
counsel, Attorney Vogelman, to settle his case on the terms
described in the memorandum of understanding; and 3) plaintiff
asserts that he, personally, did not agree to settle his case on
the terms described in the memorandum.
Settlement agreements are in the nature of contracts and so
are generally governed by state law, in this case New Hampshire
law.
With regard to the enforcement of settlement agreements
entered into by legal counsel on behalf of a client, New
Hampshire law has been clear and firm for quite some time:
“[i]t
is firmly established that action taken in the conduct and
disposition of civil litigation by an attorney within the scope
of his authority is binding on his client.”
Halstead v. Murray,
130 N.H. 560, 565 (1988), quoting Manchester Hous. Auth. v. Zyla,
118 N.H. 268, 269 (1978).
As the New Hampshire Supreme Court
noted, “[t]he authority of attorneys to make [settlement]
agreements is in practice never questioned.
It is essential to
the orderly and convenient dispatch of business, and necessary
for the protection of the rights of the parties.”
Id., quoting
Beliveau v. Amoskeag Mfg. Co., 68 N.H. 225, 226 (1895).
2
While New Hampshire law broadly favors enforcing settlement
agreements made by attorneys on behalf of clients, still “[i]f a
settlement agreement has in fact been reached by counsel, the
critical inquiry in determining its enforceability is whether the
lawyer was authorized by the client to make the agreement.”
v. Lundstrom, 133 N.H. 161 (1990) (citation omitted).
Bock
“Whether
an attorney is acting within the scope of his or her authority is
a question of fact.”
Clark v. Mitchell, 937 F. Supp. 110, 114
(D.N.H. 1996), citing Norberg v. Fitzgerald, 122 N.H. 1080, 1082
(1982); Gauthier v. Robinson, 122 N.H. 365, 368 (1982).
Since plaintiff asserts that he did not authorize his
attorney to settle his claims on the terms described, and
defendants seek to enforce counsel’s (as well as plaintiff’s
personal) agreement to do so, it is clear that plaintiff is
entitled to an evidentiary hearing to determine, as a factual
matter, whether he authorized his attorney to settle his case,
and, as well, whether he himself agreed to settle his case,
during the mediation process.
See Michaud v. Michaud, 932 F.2d
77 (1st Cir. 1991).
Conclusion
Plaintiff’s motion to reconsider (document no. 57) is
granted.
The court’s order enforcing the settlement as to
plaintiff, dated February 14, 2011, is vacated.
3
The Clerk will
schedule an evidentiary hearing on the defendants’ motion to
enforce settlement as to this plaintiff.
Defendants bear the
burden of showing that Attorney Vogelman settled the case on
plaintiff’s behalf and was authorized by plaintiff to do so, or,
that plaintiff settled the case on his own behalf during the
mediation process.
SO ORDERED.
____________________________
Steven J. McAuliffe
Chief Judge
October 24, 2011
cc:
David P. Slawsky, Esq.
Lawrence A. Vogelman, Esq.
John Gosselin, pro se
Danielle L. Pacik, Esq.
Nancy J. Smith, Esq.
Anne M. Edward, Esq.
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?