BREWER v. Livingston et al

Filing 56

MEMORANDUM AND OPINION entered DENYING the plaintiff's request (Docket Entry No. 54) and GRANTING the defendant's motion to enforce. (Docket Entry No. 55).(Signed by Judge Lee H Rosenthal) Parties notified.(leddins, 4)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
JINDARAT BREWER,
Petitioner,
v.
BRAD LIVINGSTON, et al.,
Respondent.

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

CIVIL ACTION NO. H-13-1161

MEMORANDUM AND OPINION
The plaintiff in this case has asked the court to relieve her from the settlement she agreed to
in June 2014. The defendant has asked the court to enforce the settlement. The plaintiff’s request
is denied, and the defendant’s request is granted.
The record shows that this case was settled in a conference held pursuant to court order
before a magistrate judge on June 10, 2014. At the settlement conference, the parties, both
represented by counsel, signed an agreement setting out the agreed settlement terms. The agreement
required approval by the Attorney General of the monetary portion of the settlement. The parties
agreed to dismiss the case with prejudice.
The Attorney General’s approval was obtained. The defendant obtained the checks in the
agreed-upon amounts and sent the full Compromise and Settlement Agreement and a Stipulation of
Dismissal to plaintiff’s counsel in September 2014. Delays resulted because the plaintiff’s counsel’s
office was burglarized. A new set of documents were sent in October 2014, to be signed by the
plaintiff. The defendant’s lawyer followed up in January 2015 when no signed documents were
returned. The plaintiff’s counsel responded that he was waiting for his client’s signature. In

February 2015, the plaintiff wrote to the court, stating that she had not received her settlement
check. At the same time, she stated that her lawyer had sent her the settlement documents to sign
so she could get the check. She appears to accuse her lawyer of forcing or threatening her to sign
the agreement, and states that she is “stress” and “scare” to sign. She does not, however, indicate
that she is dissatisfied with the settlement terms.
The defendant has asked the court to enforce the settlement agreement reached in June 2014.
“Federal courts have the inherent power to enforce settlement agreements entered into by the parties
litigant in a pending case, to determine compliance with procedural prerequisites, and to determine
when, if ever, a party may repudiate a contractually binding settlement agreement.” White Farm
Equip. Co. v. Kupcho, 792 F.2d 526, 529 (5th Cir. 1986) (collecting cases). A settlement agreement
is a contract; whether it is enforceable is determined by reference to state substantive law governing
contracts generally. Id.
Under Texas law, settlement agreements are governed by TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE
ANN. § 154.071 (Vernon Supp. 1995), which provides in part as follows:
(a)
If the parties reach a settlement and execute a written
agreement disposing of the dispute, the agreement is enforceable in
the same manner as any other written contract.
The document the parties executed in the settlement conference held in June 2014 before a
magistrate judge is an enforceable agreement. The court finds no basis to set it aside. The plaintiff
will receive her settlement check if, and when, she signs the settlement documents she was sent
months ago. The court will not set the parties’ agreement to settle the case aside.

2

The plaintiff’s request for relief from the settlement is denied, (Docket Entry No. 54), and
the defendant’s request to enforce it, (Docket Entry No. 55), is granted.
SIGNED on March 18, 2015, at Houston, Texas.

______________________________________
Lee H. Rosenthal
United States District Judge

3