Elliott et al v. The City of New York et al, No. 1:2011cv07291 - Document 11 (S.D.N.Y. 2012)
Court Description: OPINION: For the reasons set forth above, Plaintiffs' motion to enforce the settlement is granted, and this matter is referred to mediation to determine the appropriate extent to which Plaintiffs will release Defendants from other claims. So Ordered. (Signed by Judge Robert W. Sweet on 8/31/2012) (js)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK x SOPHIA ELLIOTT, ET AL., Plaintiffs, 11 Civ. 7291 -against- OPINION CITY OF NEW YORK, ET AL., Defendants. _..---:::::-:::::::::::::==========i\ --x \:-USDC SDNY llDOCUMENT A P PEA RAN C E S: \\ ELECfRONICP.LLY FILED I ¢ I DOC #: _ Att for Plaintiffs LAW OFFICE OF 225 Broadway, New York, NY David A. DAVID A. ZELMAN 38th Floor 10007 Zelman, Esq. Attorneys for Defendants NEW YORK CITY LAW DEPARTMENT 100 Church Street, 3rd Floor New York, NY 10007 By: Andrew Patrick Wenzel, Esq. 1\ DATE FILED: 5175./ /).... - - Sweet, D.J. Plaintiff Sophia Elliott ("Elliott") and her infant son ("I.E." and, collectively with Elliott, the "Plaintif ") have moved the Court to enforce settlement terms reached by the part s at a June 13, 2012 mediation session and to award attorney's fees. The City New York, along with its co defendants (collectively, the "Defendants"), oppose Plaintiffs' motion. below, On the facts and conclusions set forth aintiffs' motion to enforce the settlement is granted, and this matter is referred to mediation to determine the appropriate extent to which Plaintiffs will release Defendants from other claims. Plaintiffs' motion for attorney's fees is denied. Prior Proceedings On October 17, 2011, Plaintiffs filed their complaint against Defendants, seeking damages to redress the alleged deprivation, under color of state law, of rights secured under the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments the United States Constitution. Plaintiffs' complaint alleged that, on or about June 6, 2011, I.E. was 1 falsely arrested and illegally searched. action was In April 2012, this ected for participation in the Southern Dist ct of New York's mediation program, and a mediator was assigned. A mediation session was held on June 13, 2012. Defendants, neither of the session. According to aintiffs attended the mediation At the session, counsel for the parties agreed to settle this matter for an agreed upon sum payable to each of the aintif Defendants' counsel prepared a stipulation of settlement and order of dismissal and requested that each of the documents be executed and returned. On July 21, 2012, PIa iffs' counsel informed the Court of a dispute regarding the settlement terms Defendants submitted to PIa iffs. In order to ef tuate the settlement, Defendants requested that Plaintif waive any and all causes of action they have against the City of New York since the "beginning of the world." Plaintiffs object to this language because Elliott is a City of New York employee and, although Elliott states she is unaware of any specific claim she seeks to bring against the Ci uncomfortable waiving her rights. of New York, Elliott is The Court treated 21 letter as a motion, and the motion was marked fully submitted on August 15. 2 July The Applioable Standard "Settlement agreements are contracts and must therefore be construed according to general principles contract law." Palmadessa 173 F.3d 481 l v. Harrison-Bode l 1 484 (2d Cir. 1999) 303 F.3d 429, 433 i accord ColI (2d Cir. 2002). "To form a valid contract under New York law, there must be an offer, acceptance, consideration, mutual assent and intent to be bound." Register.com, Inc. v. Verio, Inc., 356 F.3d 393, 427 (2d Cir. 2004). Under New York law l to recover for breach contract, a plaintiff bears the burden of proving, the existence evidence. inter a contract by a preponderance of the ~~s~a=n~i~v~.~W~e~s~t_c~h=e_s~t~e~r__~~~~H~e~a=l=t=h~~C=a~r~e~==~~. I 424 F. Supp. 2d 710, 719 (S.D.N.Y. 2006) "[O]nce reached, a settlement agreement constitutes a contract that is binding and conclusive and the parties are bound to the terms of the contract even if a party has a change of heart between the t of the settlement MacDonald v. of the agreement to the terms the time it is reduced to writing." c Motor Cars, No. 395CV499 (JBA) , ~~ .. ~~~----~~~~~~~~~~----------~~ 3 2003 WL 22056626, at *6 (D. Conn. Apr. 29, 2003). \\ [A] district court has the power to enforce summarily, on motion, a settlement agreement reached in a case pending before it." Id. (quoting Meetings & Expositions, Inc. v. Tandy Corp., 490 F.2d714, 717 (2dCir. 1974)). Plaintiffs' Motion To Enforce The Settlement Terms Is Denied aintiffs contend that where has been an offer and acceptance, a settlement agreement should be enforced. See Hostcentric Techs., Inc. v. Republic Thunderbolt LLC, No. 04 Civ. 1621 (KMW) , 2005 WL 1377853, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. June 9, 2005) binding, de (\\[A] preliminary agreement is te the desire a later formal document, when the parties have reached complete agreement ( luding the agreement to be bound) on all the issues perceived to require negotiation. Such an agreement is preliminary only in form only in the sense that the parties desire a more elaborate formalization the agreement. second stage is not necessary; it is merely considered desirable.") citations and quotation marks omitted). rnal According to Plaintiffs, there was a written settlement agreement at the 4 mediation. Although aintiffsl counsel is attempting to locate the actual document correspondence 1 counsel has presented email himself and the mediator discussing the signed instrument. In s correspondence 1 the mediator states that the document the parties signed is a form that simply states l "FOLLOWING MEDIATION THE PARTIES HAVE REACHED A SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND WILL FILE THE APPROPRIATE PAPERS[.]" A blank copy of this form was attached to the mediator1s email and was included in PIa iffsl submissions to this Court. Plaintiffs have also pre Defendants 1 to the Court an email from counsel in which Defendants' counsel states l "This then lists both Plaintiffs l is to confirm our agreement / " names and the sum of money each iff is to receive. Defense counsel's email contains no settlement. terms of the According to Plaintif and acceptance 1 the settlement terms there is offer d enforced. Defendants contend that this matter is not ripe for judicial intervention because the precise terms of agreement have not been fully finalized and executed writing l and therefore there is no settlement between the parties. See l e.g' l Rappaport v. Buske l No. 98 Civ. 5255(BSJ), 2000 WL 1224828 1 at *7 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 29, 5 2000) ("Agreement on terms does not become binding until there is agreement on all terms as to which agreement was anticipated."). Defendants assert that, in this case, both parties anticipated that any settlement agreement would be fully memorialized in writing. F.3d 124, 129 (2d Cir. 2007) See Powell v. Omnicom, 497 ("Parties who do not intend to be bound until the [settlement] agreement is reduced to a signed writing are not bound until that time."). Citing cases from the Eastern District of New York as well as this District, Defendants contend that, because the parties intended to memorialize the terms of the settlement, there is no agreement that can be enforced. See, e.g., Edwards v. City of New York, No. 08-CV-2199(FB) (JO) , 2009 WL 2865823, at *6 (E.D.N.Y. May 22, 2009) (refusing to enforce oral settlement agreement between counsel because, inter alia, correspondence relating to the oral settlement expressly described the need for documents to be executed before the settlement took effect) i Vesterhalt v. City of New York, 667 F. Supp. 2d 292, 302-03 (S.D.N.Y. 2009) (refusing to enforce settlement where counsel for parties came to verbal settlement agreement and plaintiff signed the settlement paperwork, but plaintiff changed his mind before plaintiff's counsel returned the executed document to defendants) . 6 According to Defendants, the disputed language in written settlement agreement is standard language the City New York employs when settling cases. Def s note that iffs' counsel frequently represents lit s who assert civil rights claims against the City New Defendants' have identified two sett agreements that Plaintiffs' counsel has signed wi past three months that include the disputed language. the "beginning of the world , and According to Plaintiffs, " is a relatively recent addition to the standard settlement documents used by the City of New York. As noted above, the Second Circuit applies contract law in determining the lity of settlement agreements, and Plaintif existence of an agreement. burden of establishing the aintiffs in this case have carried that burden, producing an email from Defendants' as well as a document signed counsel confirming the by counsel for both part establishing that "THE PARTIES HAVE REACHED A SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT." document does mention Although the signed the parties will "FILE THE APPROPRIATE PAPERS" and Defendants contend that the parties 7 to reduce the terms to writing, Defendants have ed no evidence establishing that a written contract was a prerequisite to a binding agreement. ~~~., 2005 WL 1377853, at *5 (~[A] See Hostcentric preliminary is binding, despite the desire for a later formal document ."). The parties are referred to mediat to the extent to which Plaintiffs will release Defendants from other claims. Plaintiffs' request for attorney's is denied. Conclusion For the reasons set forth above, to enforce the settlement is granted, and iffs' motion s matter is referred to mediation to determine the appropriate extent to which Plaintiffs will release Defendants from other claims. It is so ordered. New York, NY August '~I ' 2012 ROBERT W. SWEET U.S.D.J. 8
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
