ASHLEY v. METELOW et al
Filing
145
OPINION. Signed by Judge Renee Marie Bumb on 11/6/2020. (tf, n.m.)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
CAMDEN VICINAGE
KEITH ASHLEY,
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
Plaintiff
v.
DAVID METELOW, et al.,
Defendants
Civ. No. 15-3153 (RMB-AMD)
OPINION
APPEARANCES
Plaintiff, Pro Se
Suzanne Marie Davies, Deputy Attorney General
Matthew Lynch, Assistant Chief, Deputy Attorney General
State of New Jersey
Office of the Attorney General
25 Market Street
P.O. Box 112
Trenton, NJ 08625
On behalf of Defendants David Metelow, Don Siebert,
Tanya Selz, and Mr. Marrocco
BUMB, United States District Judge:
INTRODUCTION
This is an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 by Plaintiff Keith
Ashley, a prisoner in South Woods State Prison during the relevant
time period. Specifically, in an amended complaint filed on June
17, 2016, Plaintiff alleged that Defendants David Metelow, Don
Siebert, Tanya Selz, and Mr. Marrocco (“Defendants”) violated his
rights under the Equal Protection Clause from 2007 to 2014 by
denying
him
participation
in
the
New
Jersey
Department
of
Corrections (“NJDOC”) culinary arts program based on his race.
(Am. Compl., Dkt. No. 11.) On October 25, 2019, this Court denied
Defendants’ motion for summary judgment and set a trial date for
December 2, 2019. (Opinion, Dkt. No. 103; Order, Dkt. No. 104.) On
November 27, 2019, Defendants filed a letter on the docket, stating
that this case had settled. (Letter, Dkt. No. 125.) The Court
issued an Order administratively terminating this matter for 60
days, retaining jurisdiction pending consummation of settlement.
(Order, Dkt. 126.)
I. Procedural History After the Purported Settlement
The Court received a letter from Plaintiff, dated January 7,
2020, which states, in relevant part:
The reason for me writing to you today is that
I will [sic] cannot and will not accept the
State's settlement offer that the defendants'
attorney discussed with me on November 27,
2019, and I am now willing to go to trial on
the above civil case.
(Letter, Dkt. No. 129.)
On January 23, 2020, the Court received a letter from Deputy
Attorney General Suzanne Davies on behalf of Defendants, stating:
This matter settled on November 27, 2019, and
the settlement is currently processing. In
fact,
this
matter
was
administratively
terminated by your Honor in a November 27,
2019 order. During a telephone conference
between Defendants’ counsel and Plaintiff on
November 27, 2019, Plaintiff promised to
dismiss all claims against Defendants in
exchange for Defendants’ promise to pay for
Plaintiff to enroll in a 3-credit college, or
vocational program, outside of the New Jersey
Department of Corrections of his choice, up to
$700.00. This settlement was conveyed to
Court the same day, and the matter
administratively terminated. Mr. Ashley
bound to the settlement terms to which
agreed to on November 27, 2019.
the
was
is
he
Determining the logistics of this somewhat
unusual settlement has required extensive
consultation with the NJDOC. Specifically, it
had to be determined how the money would be
kept separate and reserved for an educational
program specifically for Mr. Ashley, how Mr.
Ashley would inform the NJDOC of the course he
selected, and how the funds would then be
disbursed to pay for the course. The details
of how the settlement will be executed have
been finalized by Defendants, and a settlement
release with these details has been sent to
Mr. Ashley.
If Mr. Ashley continues to attempt to now back
out of the settlement in this matter,
Defendants respectfully request leave from the
Court to file a Motion to Enforce the
Settlement.
(Letter,
Dkt.
No.
128.)
This
was
followed
by
a
letter
from
Plaintiff, dated January 24, 2020 and received on January 27, 2020,
seeking to reopen this action pursuant to Rule 60(b). (Letter,
Dkt. No. 129.) The Court received another letter from Plaintiff,
dated January 28, 2020 and received on February 5, 2020, responding
to Defendants’ January 23, 2020 letter. (Letter, Dkt. No. 130.) In
the body of this letter, Plaintiff wrote:
The reason for me writing to you today is that
I am the plaintiff in the above—captioned
matter. Please accept this letter in response
to the defendants’ letter filed on January 23,
2020, in which I do want to proceed to trial
in this matter.
The matter of a settlement discussed on
November 27, 2019, over the telephone with
unknown people who was speaking for the
defendants I could not identify and the
settlement that the defendants’ offered I am
not satisfied with the settlement. It felt
like I was being coerce, pressured, immediate,
pressed, forced and under distress to settle
something that I felt uncomfortable of doing
by not having an attorney present. In fact,
this
matter
could
not
have
been
administratively terminated being that I have
not signed any documents. I cannot dismiss all
claims against the defendants in exchange for
defendants’ promise to pay Plaintiff to enroll
in a 3—credit college, or vocational program,
outside
of
New
Jersey
Department
of
Corrections of my choice, up to seven hundred
dollars ($700.00) . This settlement may have
been conveyed to the courts the same day, but
I may ask the court to dismiss this above
action under the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure or, if the settlement cannot be
consummated, request that the action be
reopened if the Plaintiff file the necessary
papers and the Plaintiff have done so. I am
not bound to any settlement terms that was
allegedly agreed to on November 27, 2019, when
I was not thinking properly due to me being
sick on that day. In addition, my brain was
not processing what was really going on at the
time.
I knew that I was going to court on Monday,
December 2, 2019 and I was going to let the
court know that I was going to trial, but due
to the inclement weather, the court was closed
on that day.
Please be advised that on Monday, January 27,
2020, I received legal mail and it enclosed a
Release and Stipulation of Dismissal for me to
complete along with a letter addressed to Your
Honor about me wanting to proceed with trial.
I returned the paper back to the Defendants’
attorney unsigned and wrote across the
documents void.
I will continue to attempt to now back out of
the settlement in this matter, Plaintiff
respectfully request leave the Court to file
a Motion to request to reopen the above action
pursuant to Rule 60 (b) Federal Rule Civil
Procedure.
(Letter, Dkt. No. 130.)
This matter is now before the Court upon Defendants’ motion
to enforce settlement (Mot. to Enforce Settlement, Dkt. No. 132)
and Plaintiff’s brief in opposition to the motion. (Pl’s Opp.
Brief, Dkt. No. 137.) The Court held an evidentiary hearing on
Defendants’ motion to enforce settlement on October 26, 2019. Mr.
David Lynch, Assistant Chief of the State Police, Employment, and
Corrections Division of the State of New Jersey Office of Attorney
General,
and
Ms.
Suzanne
Davies,
Deputy
Attorney
General,
testified for Defendants. Mr. Ashley testified on his own behalf.
For the reasons discussed below, the Court will grant Defendants’
motion to enforce the settlement entered into on November 27, 2019.
II.
TESTIMONY
A.
Defendants’ Witnesses
Matthew Lynch was the first defense witness and testified as
follows. Mr. Lynch was brought into this case with Ms. Davies in
October or November 2019 for the purpose of representing the
defendants at trial. Mr. Lynch and Ms. Davies, appearing in person,
and
Plaintiff,
appearing
by
videoconference,
engaged
in
a
settlement conference with United States Magistrate Judge Donio in
the Fall of 2019. The case was unable to settle and Magistrate
Judge
Donio
asked
the
parties
to
continue
to
work
toward
settlement.
A final pretrial conference was held before United States
Magistrate Judge Williams on November 26, 2019. The subject of
settlement was raised and Plaintiff demanded thirty or thirty-five
thousand dollars. Defendants countered with an offer to arrange
for Plaintiff to attend the culinary arts program at Northern State
Prison, and Plaintiff rejected this offer. Defendants also offered
$500, which Plaintiff rejected. The topic at the conference moved
to trial, which would begin the following Monday, after the long
Thanksgiving weekend. Plaintiff acknowledged that he did not yet
have a plan for bringing witnesses to trial.
Just as the pretrial conference was ending, Plaintiff brought
up the possibility of settlement for the payment by the Defendants
for his opportunity to take correspondence college courses not
offered by the NJDOC. Magistrate Judge Williams told Plaintiff to
make a specific demand, and he demanded that Defendants pay for
him
to
take
eighteen
credits
hours
of
courses.
Counsel
for
Defendants did not have authority to accept the demand.
Magistrate Judge Williams denied both party’s motions to
adjourn the trial and advised that if the case did not settle the
next day, before the Court closed for the holiday weekend, trial
would begin on Monday, December 2, 2019. Magistrate Judge Williams
directed Mr. Lynch and Ms. Davies to speak to their clients and
contact Plaintiff by telephone before 1:00 p.m. the next day.
On November 27, 2019, Mr. Lynch obtained settlement authority
to offer Plaintiff up to $700 for a three credit hour college or
vocational course from outside the NJDOC, or as a second option,
$500 and transfer to Northern State Prison to take the culinary
arts program. Mr. Lynch and Ms. Davies, from Mr. Lynch’s office,
initiated a conference call to Plaintiff to offer these settlement
options. At some point, the section chief from the Torts Section
of the New Jersey Attorney General’s Office entered the room during
the
phone
conference,
and
Mr.
Lynch
and
Ms.
Davies
advised
Plaintiff of his presence asked the section chief questions about
making payment for a college or vocational course, but they could
not determine how a payment would be made.
Plaintiff made counter-demands but Mr. Lynch told him the two
options they had offered were the final offers, and the deadline
was near. Plaintiff continued to make counter-demands and Mr. Lynch
reminded Plaintiff that he did not have to settle. Plaintiff asked
for time to think, and Mr. Lynch agreed but there was a limited
amount of times until they had to contact the Court with an answer
regarding settlement. Plaintiff stepped away from the phone but
Mr. Lynch could hear that he was talking to someone, although not
what he was saying. Plaintiff came back to the phone and orally
accepted the offer for up to $700 for a college or vocational
course not offered by the NJDOC. Mr. Lynch volunteered to send
research materials to assist Plaintiff in choosing a course, but
Plaintiff preferred to speak with his family and friends about his
options. Mr. Lynch testified that he and Ms. Davies would draft
the settlement release but they still had to determine how to make
the payment for his chosen course. Mr. Lynch did not hear from
Plaintiff again, but in January 2020, Ms. Davies informed him that
Plaintiff had sent a letter stating that they had not settled and
he wanted a new trial date.
On cross-examination, Mr. Lynch admitted that the November
27, 2019 conference call with Plaintiff was not recorded. They had
informed Plaintiff when the section chief from the torts section
entered the room to discuss payment from the tort claims fund. Mr.
Lynch testified that he did not know Plaintiff was diabetic or
that his sugar level had dropped or that his mind felt cloudy
during the conference call. Mr. Lynch did not know that Plaintiff
was transported to federal court in Camden on December 2, 2019,
but he knew the writ for Plaintiff’s appearance in court was signed
before the pretrial conference. Mr. Lynch did not learn that
Plaintiff had written void on the settlement release until Ms.
Davies showed it to him. Mr. Lynch acknowledged that Mr. Ashley
had denied several settlement offers prior to his acceptance of
the offer on November 27, 2019.
The second witness for Defendants was Ms. Suzanne Davies,
Deputy Attorney General, and counsel for Defendants in this matter.
Ms. Davies recalled that she joined the settlement conference
before Magistrate Judge Donio near the end of the conference,
because she had been in court on another matter. Mr. Lynch told
her that Plaintiff had rejected the settlement offer of $500.
Magistrate Judge Donio suggested that Defendants consider the
possibility of offering Plaintiff enrollment in the culinary arts
program or to pay for an outside correspondence college course.
After
the
prepared
settlement
for
trial.
conference
Ms.
Davies
was
unsuccessful,
submitted
the
Defendants
proposed
final
pretrial order to Magistrate Judge Williams, who would hold the
final pretrial conference.
At the beginning of the pretrial conference, Magistrate Judge
Williams was informed that Plaintiff had rejected an offer for
$500 and participation in the culinary arts program at Northern
State Prison. Magistrate Judge Williams then discussed how the
trial would proceed. At the end of the conference, Plaintiff raised
the issue of settlement and demanded that Defendants pay for him
to enroll in eighteen credit hours of college courses offered
outside the NJDOC. Ms. Davies and Mr. Lynch did not have settlement
authority at that time. Magistrate Judge Williams denied the
parties’ request for adjournment of the trial and told Defendants
to call Plaintiff the next day regarding his counter-demand, and
then advise the Court whether the case had settled.
After the final pretrial conference, Ms. Davies and Mr. Lynch
spoke to their clients and determined they would counter-offer
with up to a $700 payment for Plaintiff to enroll in a college or
vocational course outside the NJDOC or, alternatively, $500 plus
enrollment in the culinary arts program at Northern State Prison.
From Mr. Lynch’s Office, Ms. Davies and Mr. Lynch called Plaintiff
at East Jersey State Prison on November 27, 2019 at 12:30 p.m.
They informed Plaintiff of their best and final offers, advising
him that if he rejected the offers, they would go to trial.
Plaintiff continued to try to negotiate, but they stood firm.
Plaintiff asked for a few minutes to think and then came back to
the phone and accepted the offer for up to $700 for a college or
vocational correspondence course outside the NJDOC. Plaintiff
denied Mr. Lynch and Ms. Davies’s offer of assistance in finding
a course, preferring that his friends and family assist him. Ms.
Davies and Mr. Lynch informed Plaintiff that the settlement release
would be sent to him in the mail after they determined how to make
payment for the course. Plaintiff said that he understood, he would
look into choosing a course, and he would wait for the settlement
release.
On November 27, 2019, Ms. Davies called to notify the Court
of settlement, and she was instructed to file a letter on the
docket, which the Court responded to with an Order administratively
terminating the case for sixty days, pending consummation of
settlement. The next time Ms. Davies heard from Plaintiff was by
way of the letter docketed in this matter on January 13, 2020.
On cross-examination, Ms. Davies testified that Plaintiff did
not tell her and Mr. Lynch that he was sick on November 27, 2019,
and that she had no indication that he was not feeling well. As
the Plaintiff testified, Plaintiff was actively negotiating and
gave no sign that he was unwell. She did not recall whether she
had known at that time that Plaintiff was diabetic, and she did
not know that he had not taken his diabetic medication yet that
day.
Nevertheless,
she
testified,
Plaintiff
did
not
appear
confused, he never said he was having a medical issue, and he
appeared to be fully functioning during the conference call. She
did not know that he did not have his eyeglasses and felt stressed
because he could not read small print. She did not know that
Plaintiff felt intimidated by Mr. Lynch, who did most of the
talking on the phone call. She testified that Mr. Lynch was not
bullying or intimidating during the call. Finally, she testified
that Plaintiff had accepted an oral settlement offer.
B.
Plaintiff’s Testimony
Plaintiff
testified
that
on
December
2,
2019,
he
was
transported to the Camden County federal courthouse, prepared for
trial. However, he was informed by the New Jersey Department of
Transportation that the courthouse was closed due to inclement
weather. Plaintiff did not know what was going on. Several weeks
later, at the end of December 2019, he called the Court about the
status of his case. He was told that his case was resolved, and he
had a certain number of days to respond to the motion to enforce
settlement.1 Plaintiff felt this was underhanded because he had
written void on the settlement. He sent several motions to the
Court in response to the motion to enforce settlement.
Plaintiff testified that he felt bullied during the phone
conference on November 27, 2019. He had told the defense attorneys
several times, including on November 13, 2019 and November 26,
2019, that he did not want to settle and wanted to go to trial.
Plaintiff said that he had no knowledge of accepting Defendants’
offer on November 27, 2019. He said he did not care about money,
he wanted to expose wrongdoing by the NJDOC by going to trial.
On cross-examination, Plaintiff agreed that it might have
been February 2020 and not the end of December 2019, when he
learned that a response was due to the Defendants’ motion to
enforce settlement. He further agreed that he had not tried to
contact Ms. Davies or Mr. Lynch before he wrote a letter to the
Court on January 7, 2020. Plaintiff testified that he and his
1
By Order dated February 6, 2020, the Court granted Defendants’
letter request to file a motion to enforce settlement and notified
Plaintiff that he would have fourteen days to respond to the motion
after it was filed.
family had contacted the newspapers about his case and he learned
from officers at East Jersey State Prison that there was an article
about his case on NJ.com. Plaintiff wanted to speak out against
the NJDOC and advocate for other prisoners. He wanted to go before
a jury.
III. FINDINGS OF FACT
After consideration of the parties’ briefs and submissions,
and the testimony at the evidentiary hearing, the Court finds that:
(1) On November 26, 2019, Plaintiff appeared
by videoconference, and Mr. Lynch and Ms.
Davies on behalf of Defendants, appeared in
person for a pretrial conference before
Magistrate Judge Williams in this matter;
(2) the parties could not settle the case at
the pretrial conference and the trial was set
for December 2, 2019;
(3) near the end of the pretrial conference,
Plaintiff made a settlement demand for payment
for him to enroll in 18 credit hours of
correspondence
college
courses
offered
outside
the
New
Jersey
Department
of
Corrections;
(3) Mr. Lynch and Ms. Davies stated that they
did not have authority to settle on those
terms;
(4) Magistrate Judge Williams directed Mr.
Lynch and Ms. Davies to speak to their clients
and arrange a telephone call with Plaintiff
the following day before 1:00 p.m., which was
the deadline to advise the Court if the case
was settled;
(5) on November 27, 2019, Defendants, by their
attorneys Matthew Lynch and Suzanne Davies,
via telephone conference with Plaintiff,
offered to pay for Plaintiff to take a three
credit hour correspondence course of his
choosing up to the cost of $700, in exchange
for dismissal of all claims in this matter
against them;
(6) on November 27, 2019, Plaintiff accepted
said offer by telephone conversation with Mr.
Lynch and Ms. Davies; Plaintiff understood the
terms of the settlement, took several minutes
to think about it, and then orally conveyed
his acceptance to Mr. Lynch and Ms. Davies;
(7) on November 27, 2019, Mr. Lynch and Ms.
Davies informed Plaintiff that they would send
him a written settlement release in the next
few weeks, after determining how payment would
be made for his chosen correspondence course,
and they informed the Court that the case had
settled (Letter, Dkt. No. 125);
(8)
on
November
27,
2019,
the
Court
administratively terminated this action and
the trial set for December 2, 2019 was
canceled (Order, Dkt. No. 126);
(9) by mistake the writ of habeas corpus for
Plaintiff’s appearance in court on December 2,
2019 was not canceled, and the NJDOC had
Plaintiff transported to the Camden County
courthouse and then informed him that the
courthouse was closed due to inclement
weather;2
(10) on January 13, 2020, the Court received
a letter from Plaintiff stating that he would
not accept the State’s settlement offer and
was now willing to go to trial (Letter, Dkt.
No. 127);
(11) on January 27, 2020, the Court received
a letter from Deputy Attorney General Suzanne
2
The federal courthouses in Newark and Trenton were closed due to
snow but, to the best of the Court’s recollection, the Camden
courthouse was open. However, Mr. Ashley’s trial had been canceled
based on the notice of settlement the Court had received.
Davies, stating that the case settled on
November 27, 2019, and requesting leave to
file a motion to enforce settlement, if
necessary;
(12) on February 5, 2020, the Court received
a letter/motion from Plaintiff, seeking to
reopen this case and proceed to trial (Letter,
Dkt. No. 128);
(13) on February 6, 2020, the Court granted
Defendants’ request to file a motion to
enforce settlement (Order, Dkt. No. 131), and
after briefing by the parties, an evidentiary
hearing was held on the motion on October 26,
2020.
IV.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
A.
Legal Standard
“Under New Jersey law, a settlement agreement is a form of
contract, and courts must look to the general rules of contract
law to resolve disputes over a settlement agreement.” Mortellite
v. Novartis Crop Prot., Inc., 460 F.3d 483, 492 (3d Cir. 2006)
(citing Borough of Haledon v. Borough of N. Haledon, 817 A.2d 965,
975 (N.J. 2003). “The burden of proving that the parties entered
into a settlement agreement is upon the party seeking to enforce
the settlement.” Cumberland Farms, Inc. v. New Jersey Dep't of
Envtl. Prot., 148 A.3d 767, 776 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2016)
(citing Amatuzzo v. Kozmiuk, 703 A.2d 9 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div.
1997). “A contract arises from offer and acceptance, and must be
sufficiently definite ‘that the performance to be rendered by each
party can be ascertained with reasonable certainty.’” Id. (quoting
Weichert Co. Realtors v. Ryan, 128 N.J. 427, 435, 608 A.2d 280
(1992) (quoting West Caldwell v. Caldwell, 26 N.J. 9, 24–25, 138
A.2d 402 (1958)). “A contracting party is bound by the apparent
intention he or she outwardly manifests to the other party.” Id.
at 777 (quoting Hagrish v. Olson, 603 A.2d 108 (N.J. Super. Ct.
App. Div. 1992) (citing Looman Realty Corp. v. Broad St. Nat'l
Bank of Trenton, 180 A.2d 524 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div.), certif.
denied, 181 A.2d 782 (N.J. 1962)).
On the other hand, “[i]f a settlement agreement is achieved
through coercion, deception, fraud, undue pressure, or unseemly
conduct, or if one party was not competent to voluntarily consent
thereto, the settlement agreement must be set aside.” Jennings v.
Reed, 885 A.2d 482, 488 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2005) (quoting
Peskin v. Peskin, 638 A.2d 849, 857 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div.
1994). “The test of capacity to make an agreement ... is, that a
man shall have the ability to understand the nature and effect of
the
act
in
which
he
is
engaged,
and
the
business
he
is
transacting....” Id. (quoting Eaton v. Eaton, 37 N.J.L. 108, 113
(Sup. Ct. 1874).
B.
Credibility Findings
Mr. Lynch and Ms. Davies gave consistent testimony concerning
their settlement offer and Plaintiff’s acceptance of that offer
during their telephone conference on November 27, 2019. Plaintiff
did not testify that he told Mr. Lynch or Ms. Davies that he was
diabetic, that he felt unwell, or that he was unable to understand
what he was happening during the telephone conference. Mr. Lynch
and Ms. Davies corroborated each other’s testimony that they had
no indication or impression that Plaintiff was unwell or did not
understand the terms of the two separate offers on the table. Their
impressions were based on Plaintiff’s ability to negotiate on his
own behalf by making counter-demands, and that he was clear-headed
enough to ask for a few minutes to think it over before the deadline
to contact the Court with the result of the negotiations. The Court
finds that Plaintiff was well enough to understand the terms of
the offers and understand that he accepted an offer to release
Defendants from liability in this matter in exchange for payment
of up to $700 to enroll in a college or vocational correspondence
course offered from outside the NJDOC.
Based on the Court’s observations and assessment of the facts,
the Court does not find credible Plaintiff’s testimony that he did
not accept Defendants’ offer, that he was too sick to understand
what was happening during the phone conversation, and that he was
bullied by Mr. Lynch into settlement. First, if Plaintiff had no
desire
to
settle
and
if
he
was
too
sick
to
engage
in
the
negotiation, there was nothing preventing him from informing Mr.
Lynch and Ms. Davies during the phone conference. Throughout the
litigation, Plaintiff has impressed the Court as someone who is
not easily intimidated. Plaintiff described himself, on more than
one occasion, as the “voice for the voiceless”. Plaintiff claims
he has no incentive or objective but to expose the NJDOC for
wrongdoing, but admittedly he already received media attention for
proceeding past summary judgment in this matter. The complaint
concerns Plaintiff’s desire to take an educational course offered
by the NJDOC, for which he was allegedly on a waitlist for seven
years. Clearly, Plaintiff had a desire to further his education
and a motivation to take a course outside of the NJDOC. When he
accepted Defendants’ offer, he had already achieved his objective
of exposing his case to the media, and he also had the opportunity
to gain an educational experience without the risks of going to
trial and potentially losing any benefit he had gained, if the
jury concluded that Defendants did not violate the law.
Second, on November 27, 2019, Ms. Davies served on Plaintiff
a copy of her letter advising the Court of the settlement in this
matter. (Letter, Dkt. No. 125.) On the same day, the Court served
on Plaintiff, by regular mail, a copy of its Order administratively
terminating this action pending consummation of the settlement.
(Order, Dkt. No. 126.) The trial had been scheduled for December
2, 2019, and although it appears that a mistake was made by the
Court by not canceling the writ for Plaintiff to appear, the fact
that Plaintiff did not immediately contact the Court to determine
when the trial would proceed clearly indicates that Plaintiff knew
he had settled this case. Plaintiff claims he was told that the
Court was closed for inclement weather on December 2, 2019, but a
reasonable person would have expected the trial might begin the
next day.
Third, Plaintiff’s correspondences to the Court, the first of
which was received on January 13, 2019 (Letter, Dkt. No. 127) cause
the Court to conclude that Plaintiff orally agreed to settle the
case on November 27, 2019, and then regretted it and tried to undo
the settlement by refusing to sign the settlement release. The
letter from Plaintiff to the Court dated January 7, 2020 stated,
“I am now willing to go to trial….” (Letter, Dkt. No. 127.) This
strongly suggests to the Court that Plaintiff accepted Defendants’
offer on November 27, 2019 because he was not ready or willing to
go to trial on December 2, 2019, and he had changed his mind. There
is nothing about this first communication with the Court that
indicates Plaintiff believed the trial was still scheduled and
would have begun on December 2, 2019, but for the court closing
for inclement weather.
Plaintiff’s letter dated January 28, 2020, received by the
Court on February 5, 2020, further supports the Court’s conclusion
that Plaintiff orally accepted Defendants’ settlement offer on
November 27, 2019, and then changed his mind and attempted to back
out by not signing the settlement release. (Letter, Dkt. No. 130.)
Plaintiff’s statement that he did not know whom he was speaking to
on the phone on November 27, 2019, and his statement that “I am
not satisfied with the settlement,” renders Plaintiff’s testimony
not credible. (Letter, Dkt. No. 130.) Plaintiff advised the Court
that he received the settlement release from Defendants on January
27, 2020, and he returned it to them unsigned and voided. (Id.)
Plaintiff wrote, “I will continue to attempt to now back out of
the settlement in this matter.” (Id.) The Court believes this is
exactly what Plaintiff attempted to do. However, the law does not
permit it. “An agreement to settle a law suit, voluntarily entered
into, is binding upon the parties, whether or not made in the
presence of the court, and even in the absence of a writing.” Zong
v. Merrill Lynch Pierce Fenner & Smith, Inc., 632 F. App'x 692,
694 (3d Cir. 2015) (quoting Green v. John H. Lewis & Co., 436 F.2d
389, 390 (3d Cir. 1971). “Even the failure to execute release
documents does not void the original agreement, or render it
deficient from the outset. Execution of a release is a mere
formality,
not
essential
to
formation
of
the
contract
of
settlement.” Jennings, 885 A.2d at 489 (citing Hagrish v. Olson,
603 A.2d 108 (N.J. Ct. App. Div. 1992) (a settlement agreement
which required defendants to pay a stated sum of money and which
barred plaintiffs from pursuing an appeal is enforceable even
though the plaintiffs failed to execute general releases); see
also Bistricer v. Bistricer, 555 A.2d 45 (N.J. Ch. Div. 1987)
(holding case was settled at settlement conference where parties
agreed on essential terms, notwithstanding plaintiff's numerous
objections to the written agreement).
For all the foregoing reasons, the Court finds that Plaintiff
entered
into
a
binding
agreement
to
release
Defendants
from
liability in this case in exchange for a $700 payment to enroll in
a college or vocational correspondence course from outside the
NJDOC.
V.
CONCLUSION
For
the
reasons
discussed
above,
Defendants’
motion
to
enforce settlement is granted. The Court will close this matter.
Date:
November 6, 2020
s/Renée Marie Bumb
RENÉE MARIE BUMB
United States District Judge
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?