Haydenn v. City of New York et al
Filing
17
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: The court GRANTS Defendants' request that it enforce the settlement agreement reached by the parties. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to enter judgment nunc pro tunc according to the terms set forth in the Rule 68 Offer. (See Docket Entry # 13-1.) So Ordered by Judge Nicholas G. Garaufis on 10/14/2012. (Lee, Tiffeny)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
---------------------------------------------------------------------){
ANTHONY HA YDENN,
MEMORANDUM & ORDER
ll-CV-I003 (NGG) (LB)
Plaintiff,
-againstCITY OF NEW YORK, POLICE OFFICER
TONG, SERGEANT WHEELER,
SERGEANT FREIDMAN, POLICE
OFFICER DOWNS, SERGEANT KURTZ,
and POLICE OFFICERS JOHN DOES # 1-2,
Defendants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------){
NICHOLAS G. GARAUFIS, United States District Judge.
Defendants ask the court to enforce a settlement agreement that the parties have reached
pursuant to an offer of judgment made by Defendants under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 68
(the "Rule 68 Offer") and accepted by Plaintiff. For the reasons that follow, Defendants' request
is GRANTED. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to enter judgment nunc pro tunc
according to the terms set forth in the Rule 68 Offer.
I.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff commenced this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 and other
federal laws on March 2,2011. (Compl. (Docket Entry # 1).) On December 9,2011,
Defendants served the Rule 68 Offer on Plaintiff. (Def. Rule 68 Offer of J. (Docket Entry #
13-1).) Defendants offered Plaintiff a judgment of$1,001 plus reasonable attorney's fees,
expenses, and costs, in return for a "release and discharge [of] all [Defendants] ... from any and
all claims under state or federal law that were or could have been alleged by plaintiff in [this]
action." (Id. at 2.) On December 16,2011, Plaintiffs counsel emailed Defendants' counsel the
following message: "Plaintiff hereby accepts the offer of Judgment made by the City to him in
this case." (PI. Acceptance Email (Docket Entry # 13-2).) Defendants' counsel then forwarded
to Plaintiff a "Stipulation and Order of Settlement and Discontinuance," an "Affidavit of Status
of Liens," and a "General Release." (Def. Mot. for Pre-Motion Conference (Docket Entry # 13)
at 1.)
According to Defendants, on or about February 20, 2012, Plaintiffs counsel indicated
that Plaintiff wished to proceed with this litigation and refused to sign the settlement paperwork
forwarded by Defendants. (See id. at 1.) Defendants then submitted a letter to the court arguing
that Plaintiff s written acceptance of the Rule 68 Offer "formed a binding, enforceable contract"
and "request[ed] a pre-motion conference prior to moving to enforce the settlement agreement
that was reached by the parties." (ld. at 1-2.)
On March 9, 2012, the court ordered the parties to show cause "why the court should not
direct the Clerk of Court to enter judgment nunc pro tunc according to the terms set forth in
Defendants' Offer of Judgment, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 68." (Mar. 9, 2012,
Order (Docket Entry # 14) at 2.) Plaintiff submitted a letter asking the court to "allow this matter
to proceed to discovery on the ground that the contract was not binding, or, alternatively, in the
exercise of its discretion, relieve him of the burden of being bound by the contract he entered
into in error/mistake of fact in the interest of justice." (PI. Ltr. (Docket Entry # 15) at 2.)
Defendants submitted a letter reiterating that Plaintiffs acceptance of the Rule 68 Offer created a
binding contract and arguing that Plaintiff should not be relieved from the contract based on any
mistake of fact. (Def. Resp. Ltr. (Docket Entry # 16).)
2
II.
DISCUSSION
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 68 provides:
At least 14 days before the date set for trial, a party defending against a claim may
serve on an opposing party an offer to allow judgment on specified terms, with
the costs then accrued. If, within 14 days after being served, the opposing party
serves written notice accepting the offer, either party may then file the offer and
notice of acceptance, plus proof of service. The clerk must then enter judgment.
The Rule contemplates a four-step procedure: (1) the defendant serves upon the plaintiff
an offer of judgment; (2) the plaintiff serves written notice accepting the offer; (3) either party
files the offer and notice of acceptance, plus proof of service; (4) the clerk of court enters
judgment. If the first three steps occur, the fourth must as well-"[t]he clerk must [ ] enter
judgment" if there is an offer, acceptance, and filing. Fed. R. Civ. P. 68 (emphasis added).
The first three steps have indisputably occurred here: Defendants served an offer of
judgment on Plaintiff (Def. Rule 68 Offer of 1.); Plaintiff served his written acceptance (PI.
Acceptance Email); and Defendants filed the offer and notice of acceptance (see Docket Entry
## 13-1, 13-2). Under these circumstances, Rule 68 requires the Clerk to enter judgment.
Nonetheless, Plaintiff makes four arguments as to why the court should not enforce the
agreement, each of which lacks merit.
First, Plaintiff argues "that the Offer of Judgment presupposes that he would have to sign
and return some papers to Defendants before [ ] it becomes binding." (PI. Ltr. at 1.) He is
wrong. The Rule 68 Offer makes no mention of additional paperwork to be signed and returned.
To the contrary, it makes clear that "[aJcceptance a/this affer a/judgment w[ould] act to release
and discharge all [Defendants] ... from any and all claims under state or federal law that were or
could have been alleged by plaintiff in [this] action," and that "[t]he judgment shall contain and
recite the terms and conditions set/arth herein." (Def. Rule 68 Offer of J. at 2-3 (emphases
3
added).) The fact that Defendants' counsel later forwarded additional papers to Plaintiff is
irrelevant; the Rule 68 Offer and Plaintiff s acceptance are what constitute the binding agreement
for Rule 68 purposes. I And for similar reasons, it makes no difference whether, as Plaintiff
asserts, the papers he was provided after his acceptance were "much broader than the Offer of
Judgment." (PI. Ltr. at 1.) Only the terms of the Rule 68 Offer will be incorporated into the
court's judgment; if those terms are narrower than those in the additional paperwork, so much
the better for Plaintiff.
Second, Plaintiff argues "that going through the trouble of filling out the paperwork,
paying for notaries to notarize the various papers that required notarization, etc., was not worth
the $1,000 amount of settlement." (Id.) But Plaintiff has no obligation to process the additional
paperwork; again, the court's judgment will contain only those terms and conditions set forth in
the Rule 68 Offer. (See Rule 68 Offer of 1. at 3 ("The judgment shall contain and recite the
terms and conditions set forth herein.").) In any event, Plaintiff has not suggested that the terms
ofthe Rule 68 Offer are unconscionable or that the settlement was not entered into at arm's
length, and "[w ]hen a party makes a deliberate, strategic choice to settle, a court cannot relieve
him of that choice simply because his assessment of the consequences was incorrect." Powell v.
Omnicom, 497 F.3d 124, 128 (2d Cir. 2007).
Third, Plaintiff argues that the settlement was based on a "mistake of fact" because "a
witness to [Plaintiff s] arrest that Plaintiff believed was not available and would not be able to
buttress his claims has been located." (PI. Ltr. at 1.) Plaintiff provides no description of this
witness or how he or she would be helpful to his case; thus, there is no basis in the record for the
Indeed, according to Defendants, the additional paperwork was provided merely "as a courtesy to the
Comptroller's Office" "for the purpose of processing plaintiffs settlement more easily." (Def. Respo Ltro at 20)
4
court to conclude that Plaintiffs acceptance of the Rule 68 Offer was based on a mistake of fact
that should relieve him from the terms of his settlement. Cf. Powell, 497 F.3d at 128.
Finally, Plaintiff argues that "Defendants would not be prejudiced i[f] the court in the
exercise of its discretion allows the matter to proceed." (Id. at 3.) Whether or not that is true, it
has no bearing on whether the agreement is enforceable under Rule 68.
For these reasons, the court GRANTS Defendants' request that it enforce the settlement
agreement reached by the parties. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to enter judgment
nunc pro tunc according to the terms set forth in the Rule 68 Offer. (See Docket Entry # l3-1.)
SO ORDERED.
s/Nicholas G. Garaufis
NitHoLAS G~ GARAUFI~
United States District Judge
Dated: Brooklyn, New York
October
2012
4,
5
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?