Doyle v. Tregre

• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Louisiana
• Writing for the Court: MAGISTRATE JUDGE JOSEPH C. WILKINSON, JR.
• Decision Date: 09 February 2015
• Docket Number: CIVIL ACTION NO. 13-5524
• Citation: Doyle v. Tregre, CIVIL ACTION NO. 13-5524 (E.D. La. Feb 09, 2015)
• Parties: PATRICIA DOYLE ET AL. v. MICHAEL TREGRE ET AL.

PATRICIA DOYLE ET AL. v. MICHAEL TREGRE ET AL.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 13-5524

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

February 9, 2015

MAGISTRATE JUDGE JOSEPH C. WILKINSON, JR.

ORDER AND REASONS ON MOTIONS; FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

This a civil rights action for damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. All parties consented to proceed before a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), Record Doc. No. 12, and trial was scheduled to commence before me without a jury on October 27, 2014. Record Doc. No. 15. On October 3, 2014, the case was dismissed after a settlement conference conducted by Magistrate Judge Michael B. North. Record Doc. Nos. 30 and 31. At a hearing recorded in open court at the conclusion of the conference, Magistrate Judge North specifically approved the terms of the settlement agreement that had been reached by the parties and recited into the record. Hearing transcript, Record Doc. No. 51-1 at p. 4.

Two motions are currently pending before me in this matter: (1) Defendants' Motion to Enforce Settlement, Record Doc. No. 32; and (2) Plaintiffs' Motion to Reopen Action, Record Doc. No. 35. Plaintiffs' counsel filed a written opposition to defendants' motion, which was subsequently supplemented. Record Doc. Nos. 33, 38, and 40. Thereafter, plaintiffs' counsel filed a motion to withdraw from their representation, whichwas granted by the court because plaintiffs' lawyers faced a conflict of interest with their clients in that they were required to provide testimony contrary to their clients' position that plaintiffs had not agreed to the settlement. Record Doc. Nos. 39, 41; see La. R. Prof. Conduct 1.7(a). The court held an evidentiary hearing on the motions in two separate sessions on December 10, 2014 and January 21, 2015.

Having reviewed the complaint; the record; the testimony and exhibits introduced at the evidentiary hearings; the written submissions of the parties and the applicable law, IT IS ORDERED that defendants' motion to enforce the settlement is GRANTED, plaintiffs' motion to reopen this action is DENIED, and plaintiffs' complaint is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Patricia Doyle is the surviving mother of decedent, Deborah Prine, and the grandmother of plaintiffs Heather and Karen Prine, who are the daughters of decedents Robert and Deborah Prine. Plaintiffs' complaint alleged the following basic facts: On August 28, 2012, Robert and Deborah Prine became involved in a violent domestic disturbance at their Reserve, Louisiana, residence, which they shared with Doyle. Doyle telephoned 911 and summoned the defendant deputies of the St. John the Baptist Parish Sheriff's Office to the residence, based upon her report of the disturbance and request for assistance. When responding deputies arrived at the scene, Deborah Prine had armed herself with a rifle and was outside the residence. In the ensuingmoments, with Deborah Prine having failed to surrender her rifle when commanded to do so by the deputies and Robert Prine "yelling at the defendant deputies," Deborah Prine was shot and killed by the deputies. "In response to witnessing his wife being shot Robert Prine became hysterical. As he ran towards his wife's body screaming and unarmed he was shot and killed by the defendants . . . ." Record Doc. No. 12 (Complaint at ¶¶ 8-18).

Before all parties consented to proceed before a Magistrate Judge, I was scheduled to conduct a settlement conference in the case. After Section 636(c) consent, however, I cancelled the settlement conference, Record Doc. No. 16, consistently with Becker v. Tidewater, Inc., 405 F.3d 257, 260 (5th Cir. 2005), and the conference was instead subsequently scheduled and conducted by Magistrate Judge North. Record Doc. Nos. 21 and 30.

The record and the evidence received by the court during the evidentiary hearing concerning these motions establishes that the settlement conference occurred in Magistrate Judge North's chambers and courtroom on October 2, 2014, and lasted about two hours. All three plaintiffs were present in person, together with both of their lawyers, Gary Bizal and William Crull, and counsel for the defendants. At the conclusion of settlement discussions, Magistrate Judge North summoned a court reporter, took the bench, and the settlement agreement was recorded in open court.

According to the transcript of those proceedings, Bizal orally outlined the essential terms and conditions of the settlement agreement, including a payment of $12,000.00 from defendants to plaintiffs in exchange for dismissal of the case and release of all claims, with "a non-disclosure clause in the agreement, neither party can indicate the amount of settlement."¹ Record Doc. No. 51-1 at p. 3. Bizal also stated: "I have the authority of all of the plaintiffs to proceed with this judgment, your Honor." Id. The court and plaintiffs' counsel then engaged in the following exchange:

The Court: Mr. Bizal, . . . . Do you have full and actual authority given to you today by all of your clients to enter into and bind this settlement?

Mr. Bizal: Yes, I do, your Honor.

The Court: Are you satisfied that they're entering into this settlement voluntarily, knowingly, and of their own free will?

Mr. Bizal: Yes, your Honor.

The Court: And are you satisfied that it's their intention today, and is it your intention today and desire today on behalf of your clients to enter into this settlement and end this litigation?

Mr. Bizal: Yes, your Honor, correct.

Id. at p. 4.

As plaintiff Heather Prine later testified, all three plaintiffs sat in the courtroom throughout this exchange, observing and listening, and not one uttered a single word of objection or disagreement, either to the court or to their lawyers.

II. FINDINGS OF FACT

I find the testimony of attorneys Bizal and Crull entirely credible. Their calm, reasoned manner of testifying and demeanor on the witness stand inspired confidence that their recollection of events was accurate. Their testimony was both internally consistent and consistent with each other's credible testimony and the corroborating documentary evidence. They displayed integrity and a high degree of professional responsibility in dealing with extremely difficult clients in an emotionally charged setting, and I accept their testimony in its entirety.

Bizal and Crull testified that they conducted a lengthy pretrial investigation and evaluation of the facts surrounding the incident and undertook extensive discovery, including 14 depositions, review of an independent report of the incident by the Louisiana State Police and hiring a private investigator to gather additional evidence. After evaluating all of this evidence, the attorneys' professional judgment was that plaintiffs had a minuscule likelihood of prevailing on the merits at trial. Although neither the lawyers nor plaintiffs were happy with that outcome, the lawyers based their advice on thorough investigation, clear-headed evaluation and prudent professional judgment, and plainly communicated that advice to their clients. Moreover, to accommodate thesettlement, both lawyers waived their fees and Bizal waived thousands of dollars in costs that he had paid.

Each attorney testified that plaintiffs had authorized them to bind the settlement agreement during the October 2 settlement conference, right before the settlement was placed on the record. They confirmed the content of the transcript that none of the plaintiffs had raised any objection or indicated disagreement in any way when the settlement agreement was recited and bound in open court. In fact, they testified that counsel accompanied the three plaintiffs after the conference as they left the court, and all plaintiffs expressed relief that the litigation had been concluded, without any indication that they wished to disavow the settlement.

Both the testimony and the documentary evidence introduced at the evidentiary hearing are clear that plaintiffs waited four days after the settlement conference before advising that they did not wish to settle the case. In Joint Exhibit A, Record Doc. No. 38-1, an email sent by Heather Prine to Gary Bizal dated October 6, 2014, the Prine sisters stated in relevant part:

We are extremely upset that we believe we were pressured and bullied on Thursday, Oct. 2, 14 [sic] to listen in silence as you agreed to the ridiculous settlement amount of $12,000. We told you repeatedly that we rejected that low number . . . . Gary's statement "we cannot leave until this is settled" and the raising of Gary's voice pressing us; along with the fact that we felt we were left with NO choice at all because we were being threatened with a $50,000 lawsuit on Gary and Crull's behalf if we were to pursue the case of our parents [sic] death, was certainly too much pressure on us! Karen Prine was distraught and never commented on any agreementat all. Our very upset and elderly grandmother went into a panic attack and we all felt like we were being held hostage since Gary drove us over in his vehicle and was apparent that Gary did not want to take us back to my car.

In Joint Exhibit B, a followup email sent "on behalf of" all three plaintiffs and dated November 4, 2014, almost a month later and after the two motions had been filed, Heather Prine stated in relevant part: "[A]ll three of us, my grandmother (Patricia Doyle), sister (Karen Prine), and myself (Heather M. Prine); all believe that we did not freely and voluntarily [ ] to the ridiculously low settlement of $12,500 [sic] . . . ."

Although all three plaintiffs appeared in person on the first day of the evidentiary hearing, only one testified under oath. The testimony of plaintiff Heather Prine, daughter of the decedents, was credible in part, essentially concerning the sequence of events including and after the October 2, 2014 settlement conference. However, her testimony that she and the other plaintiffs did not authorize their lawyers to settle the...