Wolfe v. United States of America, Department of Defense, Department of the Navy et al

Filing 22

ORDER by Judge Richard A Jones. The court DENIES Plaintiff's motion to force Defendant to pay the settlement in this case on the timetable that Plaintiff prefers. Dkt. # 18 . The court directs the clerk to DISMISS this case with prejudice, reflecting the parties' settlement agreement. (CL)

Download PDF
HONORABLE RICHARD A. JONES 1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 7 8 DIANA WOLFE, 9 10 11 Plaintiff, CASE NO. C12-1891RAJ v. ORDER UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 12 Defendant. 13 14 The court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion to force Defendant to pay the settlement in 15 this case on the timetable that Plaintiff prefers. Dkt. # 18. The court directs the clerk to 16 DISMISS this case with prejudice, reflecting the parties’ settlement agreement. 17 The parties signed a settlement agreement on October 8, 2013. That agreement 18 required Defendant to pay Plaintiff $97,000. The agreement imposed no payment 19 deadline. On October 31, Plaintiff filed the motion now before the court, demanding that 20 the court impose a payment deadline of November 12. Plaintiff improperly noted that 21 motion, and later amended her request, asking for a deadline of November 22. The sole 22 basis for Plaintiff’s motion is her insistence that the deadline she prefers is “more than 23 enough time for Defendant to deposit the proceeds of settlement.” She offers no basis at 24 all for her belief that mid-November was “more than enough time.” 25 26 Defendant, by contrast, has offered evidence demonstrating that it takes time for the federal government to pay a judgment. By Defendant’s estimate, Plaintiff would 27 28 ORDER – 1 1 have been paid last month. The court has no idea if Plaintiff has been paid; no one has 2 updated the court on the status of payment. 3 The court acknowledges Defendant’s contention that Plaintiff’s implicit claim for 4 breach of the settlement agreement is a claim over which the Court of Federal Claims has 5 exclusive jurisdiction. The court expresses no view on that contention; Plaintiff did not 6 even respond to it. The court holds that to the extent it has jurisdiction to rule on 7 Plaintiff’s claim, its ruling is that Plaintiff’s claim is without basis. If Plaintiff wished to 8 be paid by a date certain, she should have contracted for payment by a date certain. 9 Plaintiff did not. Absent evidence that Defendant is unreasonably delaying payment (and 10 11 there is no such evidence), the court will not grant relief. The parties did not respond to the court’s October 29 docket entry requiring them 12 to submit a stipulation of dismissal. The settlement agreement mandates a dismissal with 13 prejudice. The court therefore directs the clerk to dismiss this action with prejudice. 14 DATED this 3rd day of January, 2014. 15 A 16 17 The Honorable Richard A. Jones United States District Court Judge 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ORDER – 2

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?