Friedrich et al v. South County Hospital Healthcare System et al
Filing
67
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER denying 61 Motion to Enforce Settlement. So Ordered by Chief Judge William E. Smith on 1/5/2017. (Jackson, Ryan)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND
________________________________________
)
STEPHEN FRIEDRICH, individually
)
and as Executor of the Estate of
)
PATRICIA FRIEDRICH and p.p.a. S.F.;
)
and AMY FRIEDRICH,
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
v.
)
)
SOUTH COUNTY HOSPITAL HEALTHCARE
)
SYSTEM; JOSEPH P. TURNER, D.O.;
)
JOHN and/or JANE DOE, alias; and
)
JOHN DOE CORPORATION, alias,
)
)
Defendants.
)
________________________________________)
C.A. No. 14-353 S
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
WILLIAM E. SMITH, Chief Judge.
Before
this
Court
is
Defendant’s
Motion
to
Enforce
Settlement Agreement (ECF No. 61). For the reasons set forth
below, Defendant’s Motion is DENIED.
I.
Background
Plaintiffs have filed an action against Defendants based on
Defendants’
allegedly
negligent
medical
treatment
of
Patricia
Friedrich on September 9, 2013. After initiating the lawsuit,
Plaintiffs
sent
a
demand
letter
to
Defendant
Joseph
Turner
(“Defendant”) on July 22, 2016. (Def.’s Mot. Ex. C, ECF No. 61-
2.)
On
July
Plaintiffs’
26,
2016,
demand
Defendant
letter
acknowledged
and
took
the
receipt
offer
of
under
consideration. (Def.’s Mot. Ex. D, ECF No. 61-2.) Thereafter,
both parties agreed to participate in a settlement conference.
(Def.’s
Mot.
Ex.
F,
ECF
No.
61-2.)
During
that
settlement
conference Plaintiffs made new settlement offers, all of which
were
contingent
upon
all
Defendants
agreeing
to
a
global
settlement. (Def.’s Mot. 2-3, ECF No. 61-1; Pls.’ Mot. 2, ECF
No.
64-1.)
The
parties
were
unable
to
come
to
a
settlement
sent
a
letter
agreement.
Then,
on
December
2,
2016,
Defendant
to
Plaintiffs which purported to accept the terms of Plaintiffs’
July
22
letter.
(Def.’s
Ex.
H,
ECF
No.
61-2.)
Plaintiff
responded by explaining, “[a]s was communicated to you at the
mediation
global
.
.
,
settlement
plaintiffs
with
are
both
your
willing
client
to
and
entertain
defendant
only
a
South
County Hospital System.” (Def.’s Ex. I, ECF No. 61-2.) Defendant
argues that Plaintiffs never officially revoked their settlement
offer of July 22, that Defendant accepted the offer through its
December 2 letter, and moves to enforce that agreement.
II.
Discussion
Settlement
agreements
in
Rhode
Island
are
governed
by
“general contract law principles.” Furtado v. Goncalves, 63 A.3d
2
533, 538 (R.I. 2013). The formation of a contract requires both
an offer and an acceptance. See Ardente v. Horan, 366 A.2d 162,
165 (R.I. 1976). Once an offer is made the offeror has the
“right . . . to terminate [their] offer by withdrawing it at any
time before acceptance.” Merritt Land Corp. v. Marcello, 291
A.2d 263, 266 (R.I. 1972). The offeror may withdraw an offer in
various ways, including by “manifest[ing] . . . an intention not
to enter into the proposed contract.” Restatement (Second) of
Contracts § 42 (1981).
In this case, Plaintiffs made an initial offer in their
July
22
letter.
Both
parties
agree
that
Defendant’s
July
26
reply letter did not constitute an acceptance of Plaintiffs’
offer.
Both
parties
settlement
conference
settlement
with
also
agree
Plaintiffs
Defendant
that
made
would
be
during
clear
the
that
contingent
October
any
on
future
a
global
settlement involving all parties. This new condition - requiring
a
global
settlement
as
part
of
any
agreement
-
effectively
withdrew Plaintiffs’ previous offer. See Restatement (Second) of
Contracts
§
terminated
42
(1981)
when
the
(“An
offeree's
offeree
receives
power
of
from
acceptance
the
offeror
is
a
manifestation of an intention not to enter into the proposed
contract.”);
see
also
F.R.D.
161
(D.
159,
Kirkland
Me.
2001)
3
v.
Sunrise
Opportunities,
(explaining
the
“common
200
law
principle[] of contract law” that an initial offer is altered
when
the
“the
offeree
receives
[a]
new
offer”)
(citing
Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 42). Because Defendant had
no authority to accept an offer that had been withdrawn, the
Court finds that the parties did not enter into an enforceable
settlement agreement. See Merritt Land Corp., 291 A.2d at 26667.
III. Conclusion
Defendant’s Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement (ECF No.
61) is DENIED. 1
IT IS SO ORDERED.
William E. Smith
Chief Judge
Date: January 5, 2017
1
Because the Court finds that Plaintiffs withdrew their
July 22 offer, the Court need not address whether Plaintiffs’
offer was “presumed to have been rejected” pursuant to R.I.G.L.
§ 27-7-2.2.
4
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?