Hakim v. Payco-General Amer. Credits Inc.

Citation272 F.3d 932
Decision Date29 November 2001
Docket NumberNo. 01-1831,01-1831
Parties(7th Cir. 2001) Michael Hakim, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Payco-General American Credits, Inc. and OSI, Inc., Defendants-Appellees
CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (7th Circuit)

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division. No. 99 C 1904---Ruben Castillo, Judge. [Copyrighted Material Omitted] Before Flaum, Chief Judge, and Posner and Kanne, Circuit Judges.

Flaum, Chief Judge.

The district court granted defendants' motion to enforce a binding settlement agreement between Hakim and Payco-General/OSI. Hakim appeals. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm.

I. Background

Until his March 1, 1999 resignation, Michael Hakim was a debt collector at the Schaumburg, Illinois facility of Outsourcing Collection Services, Inc. (formerly Payco-General American Credits, Inc.) ("Payco"), a subsidiary ofOutsourcing Solutions, Inc. ("OSI"). Soon after he left Payco, Hakim filed a charge with the Cook County Commission on Human Rights ("CHR"), claiming discrimination on the basis of perceived sexual orientation. In July 1999, Hakim joined an existing Title VII lawsuit, claiming retaliation, assault and battery, and discrimination. Hakim and OSI began settlement discussions in December 1999, when Hakim requested a $95,000 settlement. OSI, believing Hakim's claims to have little merit, refused to settle under those terms. On March 30, 2000, after a settlement conference, Hakim again offered to settle, this time reducing his demand to $12,500. Again OSI rejected the offer and told Hakim's attorney, Marshall Burt, that it was not willing to pay Hakim anything. Meanwhile, on March 26, Hakim sent the district court an affidavit prepared for Katrina Malone, an OSI employee, alleging that she had been coerced into giving false witness statements during OSI's investigation of Hakim's co-plaintiff's allegations, and false deposition testimony at trial. The district court held an evidentiary hearing on the issue on April 26, 2000. Attorneys for both sides were present.

After the hearing, on May 4, 2000, Burt telephoned OSI's attorney, Beth Golub, further pursuing settlement. Golub suggested a settlement whereby Hakim would voluntarily dismiss his federal claims as well as his charge pending before the CHR in exchange for OSI's agreement to forgo its right to seek reimbursement of litigation costs. On May 18, the parties agreed to the terms of the settlement. During the conversation agreeing to the settlement, Burt requested that OSI sign a stipulation for the dismissal of Hakim's claims in federal court, stating that each party would pay its own costs. Golub agreed, and Burt mailed the prepared stipulation as well as the dismissal to Golub later that day.

On May 17, the day before the parties agreed to the terms of the settlement and unbeknownst to either party, the district court determined that OSI knowingly and intentionally coerced fraudulent statements and testimony from Malone, and entered default judgment against OSI in favor of all four plaintiffs, including Hakim. When the parties learned of this judgment on May 19, Hakim, through Burt, attempted to withdraw his offer to settle. OSI replied that the parties had already reached a binding settlement agreement.

On May 30, OSI moved to vacate the default judgment and enforce the settlement agreement. The district court, without holding an evidentiary hearing, granted the motion.

II. Discussion

The law of this Circuit is clear that we review a district court's decision to enforce a settlement agreement for abuse of discretion. Carr v. Bloom, 89 F.3d 327, 331 (7th Cir. 1996) ("Given that the power to implement a settlement agreement between the parties inheres in the district court's role as supervisor of the litigation, the exercise of that power is particularly appropriate for deferential review."); Wilson v. Wilson, 46 F.3d 660, 664 (7th Cir. 1995) ("[Enforcement of a settlement agreement] is precisely the type of determination that normally receives a deferential, abuse of discretion review."). Hakim inartfully argues that a de novo standard applies when the reviewing court must determine whether or not a material issue of fact concerning the existence of a settlement exists, requiring an evidentiary hearing. Our case law holds otherwise. "[I]n considering a district court's decision whether to enforce a settlement agreement, including its threshold determination of whether the parties actually entered into a valid and enforceable agreement, we will not reverse unless the lower court abused its discretion." Carr, 89 F.3d at 331 (emphasis added). Therefore, we must ask not whether we agree with the district court's ruling, but whether that ruling was reasonable. Id. (citing Antevski v. Volkswagenwerk Aktiengesellschaft, 4 F.3d 537, 539-40 (7th Cir. 1993)). We find that it was.

The district court was presented with ample evidence on the record to support its finding, without holding a hearing, that a binding settlement agreement existed. "If . . . a court can have reasonable confidence that it knows what the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
20 cases
  • Ramirez v. T&H Lemont, Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit
    • December 30, 2016
    ...Am. Credits, Inc. , No. 99 C 1904, 2000 WL 656681 (N.D. Ill. May 18, 2000), j. aff'd on other grounds , Hakim v. Payco–Gen. Am. Credits, Inc. , 272 F.3d 932 (7th Cir. 2001). Apart from the discovery rule, a court has the inherent authority to manage judicial proceedings and to regulate the ......
  • Morisch v. U.S.A
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of Illinois
    • April 6, 2010
    ...court is the “supervisor of the litigation,” the court “may summarily enforce a settlement agreement.” Hakim v. Payco-General Am. Credits, Inc., 272 F.3d 932, 936 (7th Cir.2001). See also Carr v. Runyan, 89 F.3d 327, 331 (7th Cir.1996). Further, the decision to enforce a settlement agreemen......
  • Ramirez v. T&H Lemont, Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit
    • December 30, 2016
    ...Credits, Inc., No. 99 C 1904, 2000 WL 656681 (N.D. Ill. May 18, 2000), j. aff'd on other grounds, Hakim v. Payco-Gen. Am. Credits, Inc., 272 F.3d 932 (7th Cir. 2001) . Apart from the discovery rule, a court has the inherent authority to manage judicial proceedings and to regulate the conduc......
  • Beverly v. Abbott Labs.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit
    • March 16, 2016
    ...We review the district court's decision to enforce the settlement agreement for abuse of discretion. Hakim v. Payco–Gen. Am. Credits, Inc., 272 F.3d 932, 935 (7th Cir.2001). However, the question of whether a settlement agreement exists is a question of law that we review de novo. Newkirk v......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • Settlement and ADR
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Litigating Sexual Harassment & Sex Discrimination Cases Resolution without trial
    • May 6, 2022
    ...is found to be binding, any subsequent ruling from the judge will not negate the settlement. Hakim v. Payco-General American Credits , 272 F. 3d 932 (7th Cir. 2001) (holding that settlement, in which plainti൵ agreed to withdraw complaint in exchange for defendant not seeking costs and legal......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT