Moore v. Mann et al

Filing 191

MEMORANDUM ORDER re 188 MOTION to Enforce - IT IS ORDERED that the motion to enforce settlement, (Doc. 188 ), is GRANTED, in part as follows: Consistent with the terms of the oral agreement between the parties, in return for the dismis sal of this lawsuit by the plaintiff, the Commonwealth willpay the pltf the sum of $3,000. In recognition of the bureaucratic process whichmust be followed for issuance of payments from the Commonwealth, which wasdiscussed by the parties, this p ayment will be made within ninety (90) days fromtodays date. The Court will retain jurisdiction over this case for the sole purpose of ensuring compliance with this order confirming the terms of the oral agreement reached by the parties. Signed by Magistrate Judge Martin C. Carlson on August 25, 2022. (kjn)

Case 3:13-cv-02771-MCC Document 191 Filed 08/25/22 Page 1 of 9

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
BRIAN C. MOORE,

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

Plaintiff,
v.
ANGELA D. MANN, et al.,
Defendants.

Civil No. 3:13-CV-02771

(Magistrate Judge Carlson)

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
I.

Factual Background
Contractual disputes often entail divining the intent of the parties. In many

instances, this task reduces itself to an exercise in determining whether the parties
genuinely failed to have a meeting of the minds, or whether the parties reached an
agreement, albeit a rudimentary accord as to which the parties now dispute some
collateral details.
So it is in this case. Now pending before the Court is the defendant’s motion
to enforce a settlement agreement that the defendant contends the parties reached in
full resolution of this litigation. (Doc. 188). By way of background, the plaintiff,
Brian Moore, a state inmate, brought this lawsuit in November of 2013, nearly nine

1

Case 3:13-cv-02771-MCC Document 191 Filed 08/25/22 Page 2 of 9

years ago. (Doc. 1). Following protracted proceedings before the district court and
Court of Appeals, in April of 2021, the parties consented to magistrate judge
jurisdiction. (Doc. 131). We then entered a series of scheduling and pretrial orders,
addressed a summary judgment motion filed by the defendant, and scheduled the
case for a non-jury trial on the issue of exhaustion of administrative remedies in
April of 2022. (Docs. 132-172).
In preparation for that non-jury trial, we conducted a telephonic pretrial
conference on March 18, 2022. At that time, in the court’s presence, the parties
entered into an agreement settling this lawsuit. (Doc. 173). The essential terms of
this agreement were that the Commonwealth would pay the sum of $3,000 to the
plaintiff in return for the dismissal of this longstanding lawsuit. While we recall that
it was discussed that the issuance of the payment by the Commonwealth was a
process that may take some time, we do not believe that the parties reached an accord
on any other specific non-economic terms of a settlement. (Id.) Given the agreement
of the parties to these essential settlement terms, we then entered an order closing
this case administratively.
What then ensued was prolonged squabbling by the parties over a series of
collateral, non-economic terms of their accord. (Docs. 175-187). In the course of
these exchanges, the parties each endeavored to enlist our aid in securing some
2

Case 3:13-cv-02771-MCC Document 191 Filed 08/25/22 Page 3 of 9

additional settlement terms from one another. (Id.) Ultimately, the parties reported
that they could not come to an agreement on these other, collateral issues. (Docs.
186-87). However, nothing in the parties’ disputes regarding these collateral matters
changed the essential terms of the bargain struck by the parties in the court’s
presence on March 18, 2022; namely, an agreement to dismiss this case in return for
the payment of $3,000 by the Commonwealth.
With the parties at an impasse on these collateral questions, the defendant has
now filed the instant motion to enforce (Doc. 188), which requests two alternate
forms of relief, and asks that:
[T]he Court to compel Plaintiff the sign the attached version four of a
Settlement Agreement and return it to Defendants Counsel in order to
complete consummation of the settlement within 90 days of receipt of
the signed Settlement Agreement. Exhibit A. Alternatively, Defendants
request the Court to issue an Order memorializing that on March 18,
2022 during a telephonic conference, the Parties settled this matter for
$3,000.00 and that Defendants have an additional 90 days to
consummate the settlement by paying Plaintiff said sum of money.
(Doc. 189, at 3).
For the reasons set forth below, we will grant this motion, in part, in that we
will enforce the terms of the oral agreement made in our presence by directing the
Commonwealth to pay the plaintiff $3,000 within ninety days from today’s date.

3

Case 3:13-cv-02771-MCC Document 191 Filed 08/25/22 Page 4 of 9

II.

Discussion
The legal benchmarks which govern this dispute are familiar ones. A

settlement agreement is a form of contract. See Mortellite v. Novartis Crop Prot.,
Inc., 460 F.3d 483, 492 (3d Cir. 2006). Thus, “[a]n 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.” Green v. John H. Lewis
& Co., 436 F.2d 389, 390 (3d Cir. 1970) (per curiam); see also Wyndmoor Learning
Ctr. v. City of Wilmington, 1996 WL 11747, at *7 (E.D. Pa. Mar. 12, 1996) (quoting
Pugh v. Super Fresh Food Markets, Inc., 640 F.Supp. 1306, 1308 (E.D. Pa. 1986))
(a “‘settlement agreement is still binding even if it is clear that a party had a change
of heart between the time he agreed to the terms of the settlement and when those
terms were reduced to writing’”). As with all contracts, however, critical to the
formation of a settlement agreement=s enforcement is that “the minds of the parties
should meet upon all terms, as well as the subject matter, of the [agreement].”
Mazzella v. Koken, 739 A.2d 531, 536 (Pa. 1999). The essential elements of a
contract are an offer, acceptance, and consideration or a mutual meeting of the
minds. Riviello v. First Nat. Cmty. Bank, Civ. A. 3:10-2347, 2013 WL 1348259
(M.D. Pa. Apr. 3, 2013).
Furthermore, as a general rule, the party asserting the existence of a settlement
4

Case 3:13-cv-02771-MCC Document 191 Filed 08/25/22 Page 5 of 9

agreement bears the burden of proving the existence of that agreement in terms that
are sufficiently definite to be enforceable. See Garba v. Fresh Exp., Inc., No. 1:13CV-2497, 2014 WL 4976269, at *3 (M.D. Pa. Sept. 30, 2014) (party asserting
existence of oral settlement agreement bears the burden of proof on the issue of
attorney=s authority to enter into the agreement). Moreover, it is well settled that:
In Pennsylvania, one party may enforce and legally bind
another party with oral agreement. Kazanjian v. New
England Petroleum Corp., 332 Pa.Super. 1, 480 A.2d
1153, 1157 (Pa.Super.Ct.1984). “Moreover, it is wellsettled in Pennsylvania that where the parties have settled
upon the essential terms and the only remaining act to be
done is the formalization of the agreement, the latter is not
inconsistent with the present contract.” Melo–Sonics
Corp. v. Cropp, 342 F.2d 856, 859–60 (3d Cir.1965);
accord Main Line Theaters, Inc. v. Paramount Film
Distrib. Corp., 298 F.2d 801, 803 (3d Cir.), cert. denied,
370 U.S. 939, 82 S.Ct. 1585, 8 L.Ed.2d 807 (1962);
Compu Forms Control, Inc. v. Altus Group, Inc., 393
Pa.Super. 294, 574 A.2d 618, 623 (Pa.Super.Ct.1990)
(citing Woodbridge v. Hall, 366 Pa. 46, 76 A.2d 205
(Pa.1950). Furthermore, “ ‘[a]n agreement to settle a
lawsuit, 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.’ “ Gross v. Penn Mut.
Life Ins. Co., 396 F.Supp. 373, 374 (E.D.Pa.1975)
(quoting Green v. John H. Lewis & Co., 436 F.2d 389, 390
(3d Cir.1970)).
Frank v. Nostalgia Network, Inc.,, CIV. A. 96–2921, 1997
WL 44845 (E.D.Pa. Jan.30, 1997).

5

Case 3:13-cv-02771-MCC Document 191 Filed 08/25/22 Page 6 of 9

Further, when deciding whether counsel had the authority to enter into
a settlement agreement on behalf of a client, “it is ‘clear and well-settled
that an attorney must have express authority in order to bind a client to
a settlement agreement.’ Reutzel v. Douglas, 582 Pa. 149, 870 A.2d
787, 789–90 (2005). ‘Express authority’ empowering an attorney to
settle a client's claim ‘must be the result of explicit instructions
regarding settlement.’ Tiernan v. Devoe, 923 F.2d 1024, 1033 (3d
Cir.1991).” Pisarz v. PPL Corp., 4:10–CV–01432, 2014 WL 220778,
*1 (M.D. Pa. Jan.21, 2014). “Further, although Pennsylvania's rule
requiring attorneys to obtain express settlement authority is intended to
ensure that clients do not ‘forfeit substantial legal rights' unknowingly,
Reutzel, 870 A.2d at 790, attorneys are not expected to be telepathists
or even infallible interpreters of clients's verbalized communications.
An attorney is, rather, expressly authorized to settle a client's case ‘if
he is reasonable in drawing an inference that the [client] intended him
so to act although that was not the [client's] intent.’ Restatement
(Second) of Agency § 7 cmt. b.” Pisarz v. PPL Corp., 4:10–CV–01432,
2014 WL 220778, *4 (M.D. Pa. Jan.21, 2014).
Garba v. Fresh Exp., Inc., No. 1:13-CV-2497, 2014 WL 4976269, at *4 (M.D. Pa.
Sept. 30, 2014).
Here, as we have explained, on March 18, 2022, in our presence the parties
entered into what we deem to be a specific and enforceable settlement agreement,
albeit an agreement which entailed few moving parts. The plaintiff agreed to dismiss
this lawsuit in return for the payment of $3,000 by the Commonwealth, a payment
process that all parties were informed would bureaucratically take some weeks to
complete. As to these essential terms, we find, therefore, that the defendant has
sufficiently proven the existence of a valid, enforceable settlement agreement. While
6

Case 3:13-cv-02771-MCC Document 191 Filed 08/25/22 Page 7 of 9

the parties were unable to reach an accord on other, collateral, non-economic terms,
that disagreement does not change the fundamental nature of the settlement
agreement which they reached. Nor does their dispute regarding these other less
significant matters, in our view, render their essential oral agreement unenforceable.
We will, therefore, enforce the mutual oral promises made by the parties in our
presence on March 18, 2022.
III.

Conclusion
Accordingly, because we find that there was a valid and enforceable oral

settlement agreement between these parties, albeit a rudimentary one, we will
enforce that agreement by ordering the Commonwealth to pay the plaintiff $3,000
within ninety days from today’s date.
An appropriate order follows.
/s/ Martin C. Carlson
Martin C. Carlson
United States Magistrate Judge
DATED: August 25, 2022

7

Case 3:13-cv-02771-MCC Document 191 Filed 08/25/22 Page 8 of 9

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
BRIAN C. MOORE,

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

Plaintiff,
v.
ANGELA D. MANN, et al.,
Defendants.

Civil No. 3:13-CV-02771

(Magistrate Judge Carlson)

ORDER
AND Now this 25th day of August 2022, in accordance with the accompanying
memorandum, and the court finding that the parties entered into an enforceable oral
settlement agreement in our presence on March 18, 2022 which we will enforce, IT
IS ORDERED that the motion to enforce settlement, (Doc. 188), is GRANTED, in
part as follows: Consistent with the terms of the oral agreement between the parties,
in return for the dismissal of this lawsuit by the plaintiff, the Commonwealth will
pay the plaintiff the sum of $3,000. In recognition of the bureaucratic process which
must be followed for issuance of payments from the Commonwealth, which was
discussed by the parties, this payment will be made within ninety (90) days from
today’s date.
The Court will retain jurisdiction over this case for the sole purpose of
8

Case 3:13-cv-02771-MCC Document 191 Filed 08/25/22 Page 9 of 9

ensuring compliance with this order confirming the terms of the oral agreement
reached by the parties.
This case shall otherwise remain closed.

/s/ Martin C. Carlson
Martin C. Carlson
United States Magistrate Judge

9