Wolfe v. United States of America, Department of Defense, Department of the Navy et al
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)
HONORABLE RICHARD A. JONES
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
CASE NO. C12-1891RAJ
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
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.
The parties signed a settlement agreement on October 8, 2013. That agreement
required Defendant to pay Plaintiff $97,000. The agreement imposed no payment
deadline. On October 31, Plaintiff filed the motion now before the court, demanding that
the court impose a payment deadline of November 12. Plaintiff improperly noted that
motion, and later amended her request, asking for a deadline of November 22. The sole
basis for Plaintiff’s motion is her insistence that the deadline she prefers is “more than
enough time for Defendant to deposit the proceeds of settlement.” She offers no basis at
all for her belief that mid-November was “more than enough time.”
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
ORDER – 1
have been paid last month. The court has no idea if Plaintiff has been paid; no one has
updated the court on the status of payment.
The court acknowledges Defendant’s contention that Plaintiff’s implicit claim for
breach of the settlement agreement is a claim over which the Court of Federal Claims has
exclusive jurisdiction. The court expresses no view on that contention; Plaintiff did not
even respond to it. The court holds that to the extent it has jurisdiction to rule on
Plaintiff’s claim, its ruling is that Plaintiff’s claim is without basis. If Plaintiff wished to
be paid by a date certain, she should have contracted for payment by a date certain.
Plaintiff did not. Absent evidence that Defendant is unreasonably delaying payment (and
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
to submit a stipulation of dismissal. The settlement agreement mandates a dismissal with
prejudice. The court therefore directs the clerk to dismiss this action with prejudice.
DATED this 3rd day of January, 2014.
The Honorable Richard A. Jones
United States District Court Judge
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?