Wells v. City of N.Y.

• Decision Date: 18 March 2019
• Docket Number: 16-CV-825 (KAM)(ST)
• Citation: Wells v. City of N.Y., 16-CV-825 (KAM)(ST) (E.D. N.Y. Mar 18, 2019)
• Parties: CARL WELLS, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF NEW YORK, NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION, COMMISSIONER JOSEPH PONTE, SUPERINTENDENT MINGO, AND SUPERINTENDENT GLENN, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York

CARL WELLS, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF NEW YORK, NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION,COMMISSIONER JOSEPH PONTE, SUPERINTENDENT MINGO, AND SUPERINTENDENT GLENN, Defendants.

16-CV-825 (KAM)(ST)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

March 18, 2019

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

MATSUMOTO, United States District Judge:

On February 11, 2016, pro se plaintiffCarl Wells("plaintiff" or "Wells") brought an action against defendantsCity of New York, then Department of Correction CommissionerJoseph Ponte, Bureau Chief Mingo, and Warden Glenn¹("defendants"), alleging that he was exposed to oleoresin capsicum spray twice while incarcerated, and that the defendants were deliberately indifferent to his medical needs.(ECF No. 1, Complaint;ECF No. 111, Defendants' Memorandum of Law in Support of Their Motion to Enforce the Parties' Settlement Agreement(Defs' Memo)at 4.)On November 27, 2017, the defendants fileda Stipulation and Order of Dismissal signed by plaintiff and defense counsel, asking the court to "so order" the document.(ECF No. 74, Filed Stipulation and Order of Dismissal.)On December 6, 2017, plaintiff advised the court that the stipulation was "voided and not valid," and that he did not consent to a settlement.(ECF No. 84, Pl's Dec. 6, 2017 Letter.)Defendants subsequently moved to have the settlement enforced.(ECF No. 109, Notice of Motion.)For the reasons stated below, defendants' motion to enforce the settlement is granted.

BACKGROUND

PlaintiffCarl Wells is currently incarcerated on Rikers Island.(SeeECF No. 1, Complaintat 1.)Plaintiff alleges that on January 4, 2016 and February 4, 2016, he was exposed to a chemical agent, which the defendants identify as oleoresin capsicum spray.(ECF No. 1, Complaintat 3, 5;ECF 111, Defs' Memoat 4.)Plaintiff brought an action against the defendants, alleging that they were negligent and violated his constitutional rights when they exposed him to the chemical agent and failed to provide medical treatment for the exposure.(ECF No. 1, Complaintat 5, 8.)Plaintiff sought compensatory and punitive damages, costs, and attorney's fees as his relief.(Id. at 8.)

On October 23, 2017, defendants informed the court that the parties had settled and intended to file a stipulationof dismissal within thirty days.²(ECF No. 69, Defs' Oct. 23, 2017 Letter.)That same day, defendants mailed the plaintiff settlement papers, which consisted of a Stipulation and Order of Dismissal; a Stipulation of Settlement; a General Release; and an Affidavit and Status of Liens form.(ECF No. 111, Defs' Memoat 5;ECF No. 110-3, Ex. C (collectively "Unexecuted Settlement Documents").)Plaintiff signed all four documents on November 1, 2017; plaintiff has not denied that he did so, and the General Release and Affidavit and Status of Liens were notarized on that date.(ECF No. 110-4, Ex. D (collectively "Wells Executed Settlement Documents").)

Between November 1 and November 26, plaintiff made several communications to the defendants and the court in which he expressed ambivalence about the settlement offer or rejected its terms.(SeeECF No. 111, Defs' Memoat 5;ECF No. 71, Defs' Nov. 6, 2017 Letter;ECF No. 76, Pl's Nov. 11, 2017 Letter.)On November 26, 2017, plaintiff informed the defendants that he had signed the settlement documents and instructed the defendants to process them.(ECF No. 111, Defs' Memoat 5.)The defendants received the documents on November 27, 2017, which defense counsel then signed, and they filed the Stipulation and Order of Dismissal the same day.(ECF No. 111, Defs' Memoat 5;ECF 110-5, Ex. E (collectively "Jointly Executed Settlement Documents");ECF No. 74, Filed Stipulation and Order of Dismissal.)

After the court received the jointly executed stipulation, the court received a letter dated November 11, 2017 from the plaintiff that did not appear to acknowledge the stipulations of settlement and dismissal or the release, documents which he signed on November 1, 2017 and later confirmed that he had signed on November 26, 2017.(SeeECF No. 76, Pl's Nov. 11, 2017 Letter.)Plaintiff's letter to the court predated defendants' receipt of the settlement papers from the plaintiff.The court ordered the parties to appear before Magistrate Judge Tiscione for a status and settlement conference.(Dkt. Entry dated Dec. 1, 2017.)On December 6, plaintiff also filed a letter with the court, advising that the stipulation was "voided and not valid," and that plaintiff did not consent to a settlement.(ECF No. 84, Pl's Dec. 6, 2017 Letter.)

Because the parties were unable to resolve the dispute at the status and settlement conference, the defendants subsequently sought leave to file a motion to enforce the settlement agreement that was jointly executed in November 2017.(ECF No. 88, Defs' Jan. 11, 2018 Letter;ECF No. 90, Defs' Jan. 22, 2018 Letter.)The court granted the defendants' request andbriefing was fully submitted on June 1, 2018.(Dkt. Entry dated Mar. 16, 2018;ECF No. 109, Notice of Motion.)

LEGAL STANDARD & DISCUSSION

Defendants argue that settlement agreements are binding contracts that should be construed in accordance with general principles of contract law and that such agreements are strongly favored by courts.(ECF No. 111, Defs. Memoat 5-6.)Here, the parties executed a written settlement agreement, which should not be invalidated solely because one party has regrets after signing.(Id. at 6-7.)Defendants further argue that, under the general principles of contract law, plaintiff must establish that there was a unilateral mistake on his part and fraudulent concealment by the defendants to have the contract voided.(Id. at 7-8.)But the plaintiff was given settlement papers with clear language, had sufficient time to consider the offer, and had experience settling prior claims with the City of New York.(Id.)

Plaintiff did not file a formal brief in opposition to defendants' motion.Instead, plaintiff served a motion for summary and default judgment(ECF No. 112, Pl's Motion) and a supplemental affirmation to the motion for summary and default judgment(ECF No. 113, Pl's Supp. Aff.).Defendants argue that the court should consider their motion unopposed because the plaintiff did not file an opposition.(ECF No. 114, Defendants'Reply Memorandum of Law in Support of Their Motion to Enforce the Parties' Settlement Agreement("Defs' Reply")at 1.)Following the Second Circuit's practice to construe pro se filings liberally, the court considers the arguments in plaintiff's filings that are relevant to the defendants' motion for enforcement of the settlement.

Plaintiff argues that the settlement agreement is unenforceable because the agreement was not voluntary, clear, explicit, or made on the record.(ECF No. 112, Pl's Motionat 2.)He also argues that he was coerced, under duress, and lacked the mental capacity to enter into an agreement with the defendants.(ECF No. 112, Pl's Motionat 2;ECF No. 113, Pl's Supp. Aff.at 2.)Finally, plaintiff contends that the agreement is invalid because the defendants produced evidence relevant to his case after he signed the settlement documents.(ECF No. 112, Pl's Motionat 3;ECF No. 113, Pl's Supp. Aff.at 1.)

Defendants counter that plaintiff has not established that he lacked the mental capacity to enter into an agreement when he signed or mailed the settlement documents, or at any point during this litigation.(ECF No. 114, Defs' Replyat 2-3.)Defendants also argue that the untimely production of evidence did not have a material adverse effect on plaintiff andcannot be the basis of a unilateral mistake that would invalidate the settlement agreement.(Id. at 3-4.)

After evaluating the parties' arguments, the court concludes that the parties entered into a binding contract and grants the defendants' motion to enforce the settlement.

I.Enforceability of a Settlement Agreement

"A settlement agreement is a contract that is interpreted according to general principles of contract law."Powell v. Omnicom, 497 F.3d 124, 128(2d Cir.2007).See alsoUnited States v. Sforza, 326 F.3d 107, 115(2d Cir.2003)("An agreement to end a lawsuit is construed according to contract principles.")"A settlement . . .[,] once entered into[,] is binding and conclusive."Janneh v. GAF Corp., 887 F.2d 432, 436(2d Cir.1989), overruled on other grounds byDigital Equip. Corp. v. Desktop Direct, Inc., 511 U.S. 863(1994)."Settlement agreements are strongly favored in New York and may not be lightly cast aside."Willgerodt on Behalf of Majority Peoples' Fund for the 21st Century, Inc. v. Hohri, 953 F. Supp. 557, 560(S.D.N.Y.1997), aff'd sub nom.Majority Peoples' Fund for 21st Century, Inc. v. Hohri, 159 F.3d 1347(2d Cir.1998).

"A district court has the power to enforce summarily, on motion, a settlement agreement reached in a case that was pending before it."Meetings & Expositions, Inc. v. Tandy Corp., 490 F.2d 714, 717(2d Cir.1974)."[A]court may vacatea stipulation of settlement only upon a showing of good cause, such as fraud, collusion, mistake, duress, lack of capacity, or where the agreement is unconscionable, contrary to public policy, or so ambiguous that it indicates by its terms that the parties did not reach agreement."Rispler v. Spitz, 377 F. App'x 111, 112(2d Cir.2010).See alsoWillgerodtat 560 ("A court may relieve a party of the consequences of a settlement agreement '[o]nly where there is cause sufficient to invalidate a contract, such as fraud, collusion, mistake or accident . . . .'"(citingRivera v. State, 496 N.Y.S.2d 230, 231(N.Y. App. Div.1985)).

II.Establishing the Contract

Plaintiff states that the court may enforce a settlement agreement if there was a "voluntary, clear, explicit, and unqualified stipulation of dismissal entered into by the parties in court and on the record."(ECF No. 112, Pl's Motionat 2(citingRole v. Eureka Lodge No. 434, I.A. of M & A.W. AFL-CIO, 402 F.3d...