Eden v. Wal-Mart Stores Inc et al

Filing 26

ORDER denying 22 Motion to Enforce signed by Judge Benjamin H. Settle.(TG)

1
2
3
4
5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT TACOMA

6
7
8

DONALD L. EDEN,

CASE NO. C15-5669 BHS
Plaintiff,

9
10

v.
WAL-MART STORES, INC.,

11

Defendant.

ORDER DENYING
DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO
ENFORCE SETTLEMENT AND
REQUESTING JOINT STATUS
REPORT

12
13

This matter comes before the Court on Defendant Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.’s (“Wal-

14

Mart”) motion to enforce settlement (Dkt. 22). The Court has considered the pleadings

15

filed in support of the motion and the remainder of the file and hereby denies the motion

16

for the reasons stated herein.

17
18

I.

PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL HISTORY

On July 17, 2015, Plaintiff Donald Eden filed a complaint against Wal-Mart in

19

Thurston County Superior Court for the State of Washington. Dkt. 1-2. Eden’s claims

20

are based on allegations of Wal-Mart’s employees using excessive force when they

21

confronted Eden about possibly stealing merchandise from the store. Id.

22

On September 17, 2015, Wal-Mart removed the matter to this Court. Dkt. 1.

ORDER - 1

1

On August 13, 2016, Wal-Mart filed a notice of settlement. Dkt. 10. During

2

mediation, the parties agreed to certain terms, including the provisions that (1) Eden

3

would “execute a full and final release of all claims” and (2) the “parties will stipulate to

4

a dismissal with prejudice of [Eden’s] claims.” Dkt. 24 at 5 (“Settlement

5

Memorandum”). These terms were reduced to writing and signed by Eden, his attorney,

6

and Wal-Mart’s attorney. Id.

7

On April 24, 2017, the Court granted Eden’s attorney’s motion to withdraw. Dkt.

8

20. That same day, Eden filed a letter explaining his position. Dkt. 21. Eden asserts that

9

he will not agree to various provisions within Wal-Mart’s final proposed settlement

10
11

agreement. Id. at 15.
On May 11, 2017, Wal-Mart filed the instant motion requesting that the Court

12

enforce the settlement agreement and dismiss all claims with prejudice. Dkt. 22.

13

According to Wal-Mart, Eden has “remained steadfast in his refusal to sign a final

14

Release.” Dkt. 2 at 4.

15
16

II.

DISCUSSION

As a threshold matter, “if a party fails to file papers in opposition to a motion, such

17

failure may be considered by the court as an admission that the motion has merit.” Local

18

Rules, W.D. Wash. LCR 7(b)(2). Although Eden failed to respond directly to Wal-

19

Mart’s motion, the Court is aware of his letter that contains sufficient information

20

regarding the instant dispute to be considered a response to Wal-Mart’s motion.

21

Therefore, the Court declines to consider Eden failure as an admission that Wal-Mart’s

22

motion has merit.

ORDER - 2

1

Regarding the merits, in Washington, settlement agreements are considered

2

contracts and general contract principles apply to such agreements. Stottlemyre v. Reed,

3

35 Wn.App. 169, 171 (1983). “If the intention of the parties is plain and the terms of a

4

contract are agreed upon, then a contract exists, even though one or both of the parties

5

may have contemplated later execution of a writing.” Id.

6

In this case, Wal-Mart argues that the Settlement Memorandum constitutes an

7

enforceable contract. Dkt. 22 at 5–6. The Court disagrees. While some of the material

8

terms of the parties’ agreement were clearly reduced to writing, Wal-Mart has failed to

9

show that the intentions of the parties were clear regarding which claims Eden agreed to

10

dismiss. According to Eden, he did not agree to dismiss his claims against the individual

11

Wal-Mart employees. See generally Dkt. 21. Wal-Mart recognizes Eden’s position, but

12

simply disagrees with Eden’s interpretation of the operative language in the Settlement

13

Memorandum. Dkt. 22 at 3 (Eden’s “refusal to sign the [final release] appeared to be his

14

desire to retain the right to file suit against individual Wal-Mart employees . . . .”).

15

Without a clear meeting of the minds on an essential term, the Settlement Memorandum

16

is not an enforceable contract and the Court will not enforce specific performance upon

17

Eden. Therefore, the Court denies Wal-Mart’s motion to enforce settlement, and the

18

parties shall resume litigation of Eden’s claims.

19
20
21
22

ORDER - 3

1
2

III.

ORDER

Therefore, it is hereby ORDERED that Wal-Mart’s motion to enforce settlement

3

(Dkt. 22) is DENIED. The parties shall meet and confer regarding a joint status report as

4

previously requested. See Dkt. 4. A report shall be filed no later than July 7, 2017.

5

Dated this 19th day of June, 2017.

6
7

A

BENJAMIN H. SETTLE
United States District Judge

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

ORDER - 4