AYERS v. COLLINS et al
Filing
19
MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Chief Judge Jerome B. Simandle on 07/24/2012. (tf, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
RANDOLPH AYERS,
HON. JEROME B. SIMANDLE
Plaintiff,
Civil No. 11-5641 (JBS/AMD)
v.
WARREN COLLINS, et al.,
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Defendants.
SIMANDLE, Chief Judge:
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff Randolph
Ayers’ unopposed motion to enforce settlement.
Plaintiff
presents uncontradicted evidence of an agreement between himself
and all the remaining Defendants in this action to settle the
matter for $80,000, but that the Defendants have failed to abide
by their agreement and have failed to pay the agreed-upon amount.
[Docket Item 18.] THE COURT FINDS AS FOLLOWS:
1.
Plaintiff filed his Complaint in this action on
September 28, 2011.
[Docket Item 1.]
The Complaint names as
Defendants Weichert Realtors and Weichert-Mullica Hill
(hereinafter the “Weichert Defendants”) and the additional
Defendants including Warren Collins, Cross Keys Road Development
Associates LLC, Michael Deangelis, Dana D. Dolson, H.M. Deangelis
Company, and Michael Rigolizzo (the “remaining Defendants”).
2.
On February 16, 2012, counsel for the Weichert
Defendants notified the Court that Plaintiff had settled the
matter as between himself and the Weichert Defendants.
Item 15.]
Consequently, the Court dismissed the action as to the
Weichert Defendants.
3.
[Docket
[Docket Item 17.]
In March of 2012, Plaintiff’s counsel, Thomas E. Kopil,
Esq., reached an agreement with Alan C. Milstein, Esq., counsel
for the remaining Defendants, to settle the matter as between
them in which, inter alia, the remaining Defendants would pay
Plaintiff $80,000 in exchange for a release by the Plaintiff.
The agreement was reduced to writing by counsel for Defendants,
and Plaintiff executed the release on March 29, 2012, returning a
signed copy to counsel for Defendants to sign and return.
to Enforce, Ex. A.
Mot.
The parties had agreed that, upon executing a
signed release, Defendants would issue payment to Plaintiff
within 20 days.
4.
Id.
Over the next two months, the remaining Defendants
failed to issue Plaintiff a check in the agreed-upon amount.
Mot. to Enforce, Exs. F-K.
By May 14, 2012, all remaining
Defendants had signed the agreement and release, in which they
all agreed to pay Plaintiff $80,000 in exchange for his release
of claims against Defendants.
Id. at Ex. I.
To date, no payment
has been made.
5.
Plaintiff now moves for an order enforcing the terms of
the settlement, compelling the remaining Defendants to pay
Plaintiff the agreed-upon sum of $80,000.
2
Plaintiff additionally
requests that the Court order Defendants to reimburse Plaintiff
costs and attorney fees incurred in efforts to enforce the
settlement.
Indeed, Mr. Kopil had put Mr. Milstein’s paralegal,
Carol Semel, on notice that if payment was not received before
Memorial Day, Mr. Kopil would be filing a motion to compel “and
would seek fees and costs.”
6.
Motion ¶ 16.
“An agreement to settle a law suit, voluntarily entered
into, is binding upon the parties. . . .”
& Co., 436 F.2d 389, 390 (3d Cir. 1970).
Green v. John H. Lewis
In New Jersey, a
settlement agreement between parties to a lawsuit is a binding
legal contract.
Nolan v. Lee Ho., 120 N.J. 465, 472 (1990).
As
such, the Court looks to principles of New Jersey contract law in
determining whether the settlement agreement is valid and binding
in this matter.
New Jersey law recognizes an enforceable
contract where the parties agree on essential terms of the
agreement and manifest an intention to be bound by those terms,
and where the terms of the agreement are sufficiently definite
that each party's obligations can be ascertained with reasonable
certainty.
Weichert Co. Realtors v. Ryan, 128 N.J. 427, 435
(1992).
7.
Here, the undisputed record demonstrates that Plaintiff
and the remaining Defendants reached an agreement on the
essential terms of the settlement, and reduced the terms of that
agreement to a writing, to which all remaining parties to this
3
action agreed, and that the terms of that agreement are definite
such that each party’s obligations can be ascertained with
certainty.
The Court finds that the remaining Defendants entered
into the settlement agreement voluntarily and of their own free
will, under no threat or coercion.
The Court therefore finds no
reason why the settlement should not be enforced and will grant
Plaintiff’s motion to enforce the settlement.
8.
The Court is also persuaded to grant Plaintiff
reasonable attorneys' fees incurred by seeking to finalize and
enforce the settlement agreement since April 30, 2012.
This
Court has the “inherent authority to impose sanctions upon those
who would abuse the judicial process.”
Republic of the
Philippines v. Westinghouse Elec., 43 F.3d 65, 73 (3d Cir. 1994).
These powers derive from “the control necessarily vested in
courts to manage their own affairs so as to achieve the orderly
and expeditious disposition of cases.”
Chambers v. NASCO, Inc.,
501 U.S. 32, 43 (1991) (internal citations and quotation marks
omitted).
The “very potency” of these powers, however,
necessitates that they “be exercised with restraint and
discretion.”
Chambers, 501 U.S. at 44.
Accordingly, the Third
Circuit has provided that the sanctioning court “must ensure that
there is an adequate factual predicate for flexing its
substantial muscle under its inherent powers, and must also
ensure that the sanction is tailored to address the harm
4
identified.”
Republic of the Philippines, 43 F.3d at 74.
The
remaining Defendants have had an opportunity to be heard upon
this proposed sanction and they have submitted no opposition.
9.
The undisputed record before the Court reflects that the
remaining Defendants have unduly delayed the consummation of the
settlement agreement, defaulted on their obligations under the
agreement, and failed, even after the filing of the motion to
compel, to comply with the settlement or otherwise to file
opposition to the motion, thereby needlessly requiring the
Court’s attention.
The Court is satisfied that reasonable
attorneys’ fees, limited to Plaintiff’s efforts to enforce the
settlement agreement incurred after April 30, 2012, would
properly redress the burden incurred by Plaintiff because of
Defendants’ misconduct.
Plaintiff will have 14 days from the
entry of the accompanying Order to submit descriptive time
entries, hourly rates, and supporting documentation from
Plaintiff’s counsel’s billing records, consistent with Local
Civil Rule 54.2 relating to the reasonable attorneys’ fees and
costs it has incurred since April 30, 2012, to enforce the
settlement agreement.
10.
In sum, the Court will grant Plaintiff’s motion to
enforce the settlement, and order the remaining Defendants to
issue payment in the amount of $80,000 within 14 days of the
entry of the accompanying Order.
The Court will likewise award
5
reasonable attorneys’ fees incurred by Plaintiff in seeking
enforcement of the settlement agreement, upon counsel for
Plaintiff’s filing his affidavit of fees and services under Local
Civil Rule 54.2 as described above.
Defendants will have seven
days thereafter to submit any opposition as to the amount of such
costs and fees.
11.
Finally, as enforcement of the settlement agreement
appears to resolve all matters of controversy between the parties
in this action, the Court will further order that the matter be
dismissed.
12.
The Court retains jurisdiction to enforce this Order.
The accompanying Order will be entered.
July 24, 2012
Date
s/ Jerome B. Simandle
JEROME B. SIMANDLE
Chief U.S. District Judge
6
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?