Sanders v. Miss. Cnty.

• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Missouri
• Writing for the Court: Abbie Crites-Leoni United States Magistrate Judge
• Decision Date: 01 October 2021
• Docket Number: 1:18-CV-269-ACL
• Parties: QUINTA SANDERS, Plaintiff, v. MISSISSIPPI COUNTY, MISSOURI, CORY HUTCHESON, SALLY YANEZ, RYAN HILL, JOE ROSS, JOSH MALDONADO, DECOTA MCGLOTHLIN, and FAITH ALTAMIRANO, Defendants.

QUINTA SANDERS, Plaintiff, v. MISSISSIPPI COUNTY, MISSOURI, CORY HUTCHESON, SALLY YANEZ, RYAN HILL, JOE ROSS, JOSH MALDONADO, DECOTA MCGLOTHLIN, and FAITH ALTAMIRANO, Defendants.

No. 1:18-CV-269-ACL

United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Southeastern Division

October 1, 2021

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Abbie Crites-Leoni United States Magistrate Judge

Pending before the Court is a Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement (Doc. 90) filed by the Mississippi County Defendants and Defendant Hutcheson, the former Mississippi County Sheriff. If enforced, the alleged settlement agreement would result in a payment of the $2, 000, 000 policy limits by Mississippi County, Missouri's insurer, Missouri Public Entity Risk Management Fund (MOPERM), to settle Plaintiff's claims against the Mississippi County Defendants and Defendant Hutcheson. Plaintiff opposes the Motion. (Doc. 96.)

Procedural Background and Denial of Request for Evidentiary Hearing

On August 20, 2021, a phone conference was held with counsel for all parties except counsel for the City of Charleston Defendants regarding the pending Motion. During the conference, there was discussion about the roles of the attorneys representing the Defendants and the two insurance companies that hired the attorneys in this case. At the conclusion of the conference, the parties were given ten days to determine if they could reach a resolution without the Court ruling on the pending Motion.

In response to the information about attorney representation Plaintiff filed a Motion for Leave (Doc. 109) to File a Supplemental Memorandum (Doc. 109-1) in Opposition to the Mississippi County Defendants' Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement. Plaintiff claims that the Mississippi County Defendants' attorney “lacked authority to accept a settlement demand on behalf of Defendant Cory Hutcheson because [he] has repeatedly denied that he represents Defendant Hutcheson and has no authority to act on his behalf.” Id. at p. 1.

Defendant Hutcheson urges the Court to deny Plaintiff's request to supplement. (Doc. 110.) Alternatively, Defendant Hutcheson requests that if Plaintiff is granted leave to file the supplement that he be granted the opportunity to produce evidence consistent with his Memorandum of Law in Opposition. Id. at p. 8. More specifically, Defendant Hutcheson anticipates the need to submit exhibits for in camera review to show that the attorney hired by MOPERM had authority to act on behalf of MOPERM, the Mississippi County Defendants, and Defendant Hutcheson. Id. at p. 5.

The Mississippi County Defendants join Defendant Hutcheson's Response. (Doc. 112.) Counsel for the Mississippi County Defendants also reviewed applicable case law; and explained that “[i]nitially MOPERM denied coverage to Cory Hutcheson, but thereafter after review of its interests agreed to provide coverage under its policy to Mr. Hutcheson. Neither Cory Hutcheson [n]or the other Mississippi County Defendants had any right to control the offer of settlement of the underlying case.” Id. at pp. 2-3.

The Eighth Circuit recognizes a general rule that “an evidentiary hearing should be held when there is a substantial factual dispute over the existence or terms of a settlement.” Stewart v. M.D.F., Inc., 83 F.3d 247, 251 (8th Cir. 1996) (citation omitted). That said “[t]here is no automatic entitlement to an evidentiary hearing simply because [a] motion concerns a settlement agreement.” Id. (citing Vaughn v. Sexton, 975 F.2d 498, 505 (8th Cir. 1992) (district court's failure to hold an evidentiary hearing regarding settlement agreement was upheld)).

In Stewart, “the parties' counsel were the sole witnesses to their own conversations” and “counsels' representations to [the court] were made as officers of the court.” Id. at 252. The Stewart panel affirmed the district court's refusal to hold an evidentiary hearing.

In this case, the parties' counsel provided the correspondence related to the settlement in question, along with their own interpretations of what the correspondence means. Only the attorneys participated in the settlement discussion. Except for Defendant Hutcheson's counsel's request for in camera review of documents related to attorney representation, there has not been a request for an evidentiary hearing. In these circumstances, there is nothing to be gained from holding what would in essence be “a mini-trial to resolve a dispute between attorneys…” Stewart, 83 F.3d at 252. Furthermore, between the pleadings and the exhibits submitted, there is sufficient evidence before the Court to address the question related to the authority of the MOPERM attorney to act on behalf of MOPERM, the Mississippi County Defendants, and Defendant Hutcheson. Thus, the Motion will be considered without an evidentiary hearing.

Plaintiff's request to supplement her opposition to the Motion to Enforce will be granted and the Defendants' pleadings in opposition will also be considered.

I.Defendants' Motion

The Defendants claim that a valid settlement agreement was reached on April 26, 2021, when they met Plaintiff's settlement demand of $2, 000, 000 on behalf of the Mississippi County Defendants and Defendant Hutcheson. Defendants have submitted email correspondence between counsel for Plaintiff and the attorneys for Defendants setting out the settlement negotiations and alleged agreement. (Doc. 90-1, 90-2, 90-3, 90-4.)

Plaintiff responds that a settlement agreement was never reached, because “Plaintiff's counsel specifically conditioned Plaintiff's offer to settle with the Mississippi County Defendants for the MOPERM policy limits on the expressed exclusion of Defendant Hutcheson from the settlement.” (Doc. 96 at p. 11.) Plaintiff contends there was not a “‘mirror image' acceptance of the original offer, ” because the April 26, 2021 communication added a material term by including Defendant Hutcheson in the settlement. Id. Plaintiff further argues that the attorney for the Mississippi County Defendants was not competent to settle the matter on behalf of Defendant Hutcheson.

I.A. Findings of Fact

“[T]he proper discharge of judicial function in a case in which the parties to an agreement disagree as to its meaning and effect ordinarily requires something further than a mere examination and consideration of words employed in the written contract.” Cure v. City of Jefferson, 380 S.W.2d 305, 310 (Mo. banc 1964). “The intent of contracting parties is an issue of fact, …” Sheng v. Starkey Laboratories, Inc., 117 F.3d 1081, 1084 (8th Cir. 1997) (citing City of Savage v. Formanek, 459 N.W.2d 173, 175 (Minn.App. 1990) (applying clear error review to factual findings)).

To properly interpret the words of a contract, courts consider “the situation of the parties and the accompanying circumstances at the time it was entered into-not for purposes of modifying or enlarging or curtailing its terms, but to aid in determining the meaning to be given to the agreement.” Cure, 380 S.W.2d at 311. See also Press Mach. Corp. v. Smith R.P.M. Corp., 727 F.2d 781, 784-85 (8th Cir. 1984) (citations omitted)).

Background

Following the death of her son in Mississippi County, Missouri, Plaintiff Quinta Sanders (the natural mother of decedent, Tory Sanders) filed this action individually and on behalf of all members of the class one beneficiaries for wrongful death, including the decedent's wife and his nine minor children, for money damages related to the injuries and death of Tory Sanders. Plaintiff asserts both civil right claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and Missouri state law claims.

The Defendants in this matter are represented by three separate attorneys. An attorney hired by the City of Charleston's insurer, Saver's Property & Casualty Insurance Company (hereinafter Saver's), represents the “City of Charleston Defendants.” Mississippi County is listed as an additional insured on the Saver's policy.

A second group of Defendants are employed by Mississippi County, Missouri, including Sally Yanez; Ryan Hill; Joe Ross; Josh Maldonado; Decota McGlothlin; and Faith Altamirano along with the County itself. MOPERM retained an attorney to represent these “Mississippi County Defendants” and not the former Mississippi County Sheriff, Cory Hutcheson. At the outset of the litigation, MOPERM denied coverage for Defendant Hutcheson. (Doc. 96 at p. 3.) The attorney for the Mississippi County Defendants (who was retained by MOPERM) explained, “[b]ecause there was a question of coverage for Cory Hutcheon, it was required that he have separate legal counsel as the counsel for the other Mississippi County Defendants could not represent him.” (Doc. 112 at p. 2.)

The former sheriff, Defendant Cory Hutcheson, is represented by another attorney who was hired by Saver's, under a Reservation of Rights. (Doc. 96 at p. 3.)

The parties engaged in court ordered mediation on July 27, 2020, and they did not achieve a settlement. (Doc. 58). In early 2021, the Court was notified that Plaintiff reached a settlement with the City of Charleston Defendants. This Court approved that settlement, in the amount of $500, 000 from the Saver's policy, on April 16, 2021. (Doc. 85.)

March 24, 2021 Communications

On March 24, 2021, Plaintiff's counsel sent an email to counsel for Defendant Hutcheson and counsel for the Mississippi County Defendants, addressing them as “Gentlemen.” (Doc. 90-1 at p. 1.) Counsel for the City of Charleston Defendants was copied on the message. The email opened with a reference to a recent Missouri Court of Appeals decision concerning whether MOPERM was subject to sovereign immunity from claims of bad faith failure to settle within policy limits and breach of fiduciary duty. Id. Plaintiff's counsel then wrote:

Ms. Sanders is willing to give

...