Perez-Figueroa v Horizon Lines, LLC, et al

Filing 46

ORDER ENFORCING SETTLEMENT re 38 Motion for Miscellaneous Relief. Signed by Judge Francisco A. Besosa on 06/04/2012. (brc)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO
ERIC J. PEREZ-FIGUEROA,
Plaintiff,
Civil No. 11-1459 (FAB)

v.
HORIZON LINES, LLC, et al.,
Defendants.

ORDER ENFORCING SETTLEMENT
This action concerns a complaint by a merchant seaman invoking
three federal
employment.

causes

of

action,

all

related

to

his

maritime

The case proceeded under the terms of the Case

Management Order entered on August 2, 2011, Docket No. 10, as
amended by the Order of February 17, 2012, Docket No. 35.

The

matter is now before the Court on separate motions filed on
April 27, 2012:

the plaintiff’s “Motion Requesting Hearing to

Ratify or Set Aside Settlement Agreement, and/or Extend Discovery
Period” (Docket No. 37), and the defendants’ “Motion to Enforce
Settlement” (Docket No. 38).

The motions reveal that the parties

had entered into a settlement of the case on April 23, 2012, but
that an issue arose shortly thereafter as to the plaintiff’s
recanting of this settlement.

This brings into question whether

the settlement entered into by the parties was valid and should be
enforced.

A hearing on the matter was held on June 1, 2012.

(Docket No. 45)

Civil No. 11-1459 (FAB)

2

The determination of whether a merchant mariner has entered
into a valid and enforceable settlement is a question of federal
law.

Garrett v. Moore-McCormack Co., 317 U.S. 239 (1942).

“In

cases involving seamen, the burden is on the defendant to show that
a release of claims ‘was executed freely, without deception or
coercion,

and

that

it

was

understanding of his rights.’”
F.3d 35, 41 (1st Cir. 2003).

made

by

the

seaman

with

full

Richards v. Relentless, Inc., 341
“The adequacy of the consideration

and the nature of the medical and legal advice available to the
seaman at the time of signing the release are relevant to an
appraisal of this understanding.”

Garrett, 317 U.S. at 248.

At the hearing held, the plaintiff attended and was questioned
on

the

approval

and

acceptance

of

the

settlement,

and

the

authenticity of the documents executed contemporaneously with the
formation of the agreement. From the full record before the Court,
and after the application of the Garrett requirements, 317 U.S.
at 248, it is clear that a settlement was reached and that it
should be enforced.
The plaintiff has been represented by counsel throughout all
proceedings.

At the time of the settlement, the case was well

advanced, with depositions having been taken and various expert
reports exchanged between the parties.

From the submissions

(Docket No. 38, p. 3), it appears that the plaintiff received
expert reports from a liability expert, two medical experts and one

Civil No. 11-1459 (FAB)

3

economic expert. During the course of the proceedings, the parties
had

participated

in

a

independent mediator.

voluntary

mediation

session

with

an

Upon the entry of this Court’s Order of

April 27, 2012, (Docket No. 39), the Court received a copy of the
plaintiff’s ratification of the settlement agreement.
No. 40.)

(Docket

Subsequently, the plaintiff’s attorney supplemented the

record with a another document which was submitted to the Court ex
parte.

(Docket No. 41.)

At the hearing, a third document

ratifying the settlement was also submitted.

The original of all

three documents that were submitted to the Court at the hearing
will be translated and be made to form part of the record.

Upon

questioning at the hearing, the plaintiff confirmed that he had
subscribed all three documents.

The documents clearly authorize

the plaintiff’s attorney to negotiate the settlement that was
agreed to by the defendant.

The documents also confirm that the

plaintiff had the opportunity to review the evaluation of the
experts and
settlement.

the

attorney

in

authorizing and

agreeing

to

the

In the documents, the specific amounts are discussed,

and specific conditions are agreed to, including confidentiality
and a “no sail” clause.

The record is to the effect that a full

analysis was undertaken by the plaintiff, his attorney, and his
expert advisors
settlement.

as

to

the

terms,

benefits

and

conditions of

Civil No. 11-1459 (FAB)
In

view

of

the

4
full

record

now

before

the

Court,

the

inescapable conclusion is that the parties agreed to a settlement
to close out this action.

The plaintiff fully understood his

rights in accepting this settlement; was fully agreeable to the
amount of the settlement; the monetary terms of the settlement were
adequate; the risks of litigation were evaluated with competent
advisors;

the

method

of

satisfaction

of

attorney’s

fees

was

discussed and agreed to; and there was unabated access to medical
and legal advice.

The record also makes clear that the settlement

was accepted freely without deception or coercion.

This is,

therefore, the type of settlement where the parties should be held
to the full terms of their negotiated agreement.

Mathewson Corp.

v. Allied Marine Industries, Inc., 827 F.2d 850, 852-53 (1st Cir.
1987).

The Court, therefore, ORDERS that the settlement entered

between the parties be enforced.

The plaintiff is ORDERED to

execute

and

the

settlement

agreement

release

which

included

provisions for confidentiality and a “no sail” clause.
The

parties

shall

forthwith

advise

the

Court

that

all

settlement documents have been duly signed and the agreed payment
has been effected so that a formal order of dismissal and the
corresponding final judgment with prejudice may be entered.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
San Juan, Puerto Rico, June 4, 2012.
s/ Francisco A. Besosa
FRANCISCO A. BESOSA
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE