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