Gieselman v. Jackson
| Decision Date | 03 February 2012 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 4:10CV1619 JAR |
| Parties | GARY GIESELMAN, Plaintiff, v. VALERIA WILSON JACKSON, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Missouri |
This matter comes before the Court on Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF 134). This matter is fully briefed and are ready for disposition.
For purposes of this Motion, Defendants1 assume as true all of Plaintiff Gary J. Gieselman's ("Plaintiff") allegations regarding the underlying events at the Washington County Jail that occurred on September 29, 2005. (Memorandum in Support of Summary Judgment Motion ("Memorandum"), ECF No. 135, p. 1; Reply Memorandum in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment ("Reply"), ECF No. 145, p. 2). Plaintiff brought a claim against Washington County and its employees, which was referred to the Missouri Public Entity Risk Management Fund ("MOPERM"). (Memorandum, p. 2).
In the summer of 2006, Plaintiff and MOPERM began discussing Plaintiff's allegations and a possible settlement.2 Throughout Plaintiff's claim to MOPERM, Plaintiff asserted that Washington County was liable to him for the assault committed by other detainees because Washington County officials instigated and encouraged the assault. (Statement of Undisputed Material Facts ("SUMF"), ECF No. 135 at pp. 12-14, ¶3). For example, in the first email provided, dated June 20, 2006, Plaintiff specifically claims that Washington County Sheriff Department employees directed detainees to assault him: "i really hope by now you have had some time to review my claim with washington county,mo. wherein i was nearly beat to death by several inmates upon direction and negligence of the washington county sherriffs dept.employees. [sic]"(6/20/06 email, 5:19 p.m.). Also from the beginning, Plaintiff attempted to settle his claims and avoid litigation. Plaintiff's initial offer for settling his claims was $189,000.00. (Id.). In response, MOPERM stated that it was waiting for the report from the investigation of the September 29, 2005 incident and also for copies of Plaintiff's medical records. (6/22/06 email, 12:49 p.m.; 9/20/06 email; 11:18 a.m.). Plaintiff acknowledged that he was not an attorney, but contended that he had "10 years of experience in legal research, and [has] read over 200 appellant and supreme court cases" so that he knew "where [his] case [stood], and [knew his] final outcome in time." (6/22/06 email; 12:43 p.m.). On September 20, 2005, Plaintiff offered to "take a third off my proposal" to start the negotiations. (9/20/06 email; 11:11 a.m.). Plaintiff promised that he would (Id.). On September 21, 2006, Plaintiff again contacted MOPERM in an effort to settle his case. (9/21/06 email; 2:28 p.m.). Plaintiff indicated that he had spoken with an attorney; this attorney contactedindividuals who verified his claim that "this has happened before, others have been assaulted in there jail at the hands and directions of these employees,these employees were actually compensating these inmates for carrying out these assaults which were ordered by the employees, these inmates were awarded more priveleges,paid in cash placed on there books,given cigaretttes,etc. by these employees who ordered these attacks and assaults [sic]." (Id.). On October 2, 2006, Plaintiff again suggested that MOPERM "make me an offer that is reasonable and we can get this done and over with." (10/2/06 email, 11:58 a.m.). On October 16, 2008, Plaintiff indicated that he was considering filing a "state and federal suit" but noted that "[i]f you had offered a third or fourth of what i proposed i would have settled and we could have gone on with our lives and put this behind us." (10/16/06 email, 8:37 a.m.). On November 6, 2006, Plaintiff inquired why MOPERM would not want to settle his claims for "pennies on the dollar." (11/6/06 email, 10:17 p.m.). Plaintiff indicated that he did not have insurance and needed the money to get proper medical and dental treatment. (Id.). Plaintiff also stated, "i know alot more than you might think i do about this whole matter and incident it goes far beyond one episode and who was involved in all the episodes [sic]." (Id.). On November 21, 2006, Plaintiff offered to settle his claims for $135,000.00 because "Im not in this to make attorneys rich they get a third [sic]." (11/21/06; 11:15 p.m.). On November 27, 2006, Plaintiff asked if MOPERM wanted to make a counter proposal to settle his claims. (11/27/06 email, 2:52 p.m.). Later that day, Plaintiff responded and asked if they could come to an agreement by Friday because "im not out for the money like the attorneys care about [sic]." (11/17/06 email, 9:45 p.m.). On December 29, 2006, Plaintiff emailed MOPERM and asked if it would consider settling the case out of court for the amount of his last proposal, "which is pennies on the dollar[.]" (12/29/06 email, 2:17 p.m.). On January 18, 2007, Plaintiff provided MOPERM with a list of settlements or awards that were allegedly similar to Plaintiff's injuries. (1/18/07 email; 12:43 p.m.). Plaintiff indicated that he would settle his claims "somewhere in the area of [$]150,000.00" (Id.). On January 19,2007, MOPERM offered to settle Plaintiff's claims for $5,000.00. (1/19/07 email; 11:00 a.m.). Later that day, Plaintiff made the counter offer of $170,000.00 to settle his claims. (1/19/07 email, 11:43 a.m.). On January 24, 2007, Plaintiff asked MOPERM to reconsider his counter proposal based upon his "significant research ... as for settlements and awards with injuries sustained such as mine, fractured eye socket, torn retina, etc." (1/24/07 email; 11:43 a.m.). Later that day, Plaintiff stated that he understood MOPERM's position that it required documentation of future medical expenses. (1/24/07 email, 2:41 p.m.). Plaintiff suggested that he either obtain an estimate for his future medical reconstructive surgery or that they enter into a structured settlement of a one time payment plus future medical expenses. (Id.). On January 26, 2007, Plaintiff stated that MOPERM had offered $50,000.00 but that he had said that he would not settle for less than $150,000.00. (1/26/07 email, 12:52 p.m.). Plaintiff suggested that MOPERM "meet me somewhere in the middle[.]" (Id.). On February 1, 2007, Plaintiff made a counter offer of $89,000.00. (2/1/07 email, 3:47 p.m.). On February 2, 2007, MOPERM offered Plaintiff $50,000.00 to settle "any potential claim you may have against Washington County, its officials and employees." (2/2/07 email, 9:13 a.m.). MOPERM stated that it could not offer Plaintiff more than $50,000.00 "without documentation from a certified physician which indicates the treatment you need and the associated cost." (Id.). Later that day, Plaintiff offered to settle for $50,000.00, plus the estimated cost of repair on his eye, as long as the total did not exceed his counter proposal offer of $89,000.00. (2/2/07 email, 2:17 p.m.). On February 2, 2007, Plaintiff asked if it would be possible to issue "a cashiers check payable to me" because he resolved "this matter quietly and quickly and to me reasonably fair." (2/3/07 email, 6:12 p.m.).
After months of negotiating, on February 5, 2007, Plaintiff agreed to settle and signed a release ("the Release") that provided:
for an in consideration of the sum of Fifty thousand dollars, ("$50,000.00")" to "remise, release and forever discharge Washington County, it's [sic] elected officials and employees ... of and from any and all, and all manner of, actions and causes of action, rights, suits, covenants, contracts, agreements, judgments, claims and demands whatsoever ... arising from and by reason of any and all KNOWN AND UNKNOWN, FORESEEN AND UNFORESEEN bodily and personal injuries or death, damage to property, and the consequences thereof, which heretofore have been, and which hereafter may be sustained by the Undersigned ... from all liability arising out of an occurrence that happened on or about the 29th day of September 29, 2005, [sic] at or near the Washington County Jail, Potosi, Missouri.
(Release, ECF Nos. 134-2, 134-3)(emphasis in original). MOPERM made the check for $50,000.00 payable to Plaintiff. (ECF No. 134-4). Plaintiff cashed the check the same day he signed the Release, February 5, 2007. (ECF No. 134-4; SUMF, ¶7). MOPERM has utilized this method of settling claims made against member entities and their officials and employees for hundreds, if not thousands, of claims. (SUMF, ¶9).
The Court may grant a motion for summary judgment if "the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c); Celotex Corp. v. Citrate, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986); Torgerson v. City of Rochester, 643 F.3d 1031, 1042 (8th Cir. 2011). The substantive law determines which facts are critical and which are irrelevant. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). Only disputes over facts that might affect the outcome will properly preclude summary judgment. Id. Summary judgment is not proper if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party. Id.
A moving party always bears the burden of informing the Court of the basis of its motion. Celotex Corp., 477 U.S. at 323. Once the moving party discharges this burden, the nonmoving party must set forth specific facts demonstrating that there is a dispute as to a genuine issue of materialfact, not the "mere existence of some alleged factual dispute." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e); Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248. The nonmoving party may not rest upon mere allegations or denials of his pleading. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 258. "[A] properly supported motion...
To continue reading
Request your trial