Brooks v. Wilkie

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI EASTERN DIVISION

DEREX BROOKS, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) No. 4:21-cv-1326-MTS ) ROBERT L. WILKIE, United States Secretary ) of Veteran Affairs, ) ) Defendant. )

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Before the Court is Defendant’s Motion to Enforce Settlement with pro se Plaintiff. Doc. [68]. During mediation, the parties agreed to a settlement. Doc. [68-2]; Doc. [63]. The principal terms of settlement were memorialized in writing and signed by Plaintiff, counsel for Defendant, and the mediator. Doc. [68-2]. The next day, Plaintiff reported he changed his mind about settlement,1 despite the signed settlement agreement. Doc. [68-3]; Doc. [65]. “The district court has inherent power to enforce a settlement agreement as a matter of law when the terms are unambiguous.” Harper Enterprises, Inc. v. Aprilia World Serv. USA, Inc., 270 F. App’x 458, 460 (8th Cir. 2008) (quoting Barry v. Barry, 172 F.3d 1011, 1013 (8th Cir. 1999)). A settlement agreement is a contract, and “[b]asic principles of contract formation govern the existence and enforcement of the alleged settlement.” Chaganti & Assocs., P.C. v. Nowotny, 470

1 Plaintiff returned to the mediator’s office and explained he was “unsatisfied” with the settlement. Doc. [68-3]. Plaintiff then filed a Motion with the Court requesting to continue mediation, despite the signed settlement agreement, “due to a lack of interrogatories and explanation of facts.” Doc. [65]. Plaintiff also indicated he was not in the “right state of mind due to mental stress” and thus, felt unprepared for mediation. Id. Plaintiff filed a second Motion stating, “the mediation didn’t go well because of non-discussion of the matter that I presented to Mr. Hilderbaun [sic], never received his discovery pertaining to the interrogatories.” Doc. [66]. Plaintiff never served Defendant with written discovery. Doc. [68] ¶ 8. F.3d 1215, 1221 (8th Cir. 2006) (citing /n re Airline Ticket Comm’n Antitrust Litig., 268 F.3d 619, 623 (8th Cir. 2001) & Sheng v. Starkey Labs., 53 F.3d 192, 194 (8th Cir. 1995)). Here, Plaintiff agreed to the settlement during mediation and those terms were memorialized in a “Settlement Agreement” signed by Plaintiff, the mediator, and counsel for Defendant. See Doc. [68-2]. The terms in the Settlement Agreement are unambiguous, and Plaintiff does not argue any of the essential elements to forming a contract are lacking. Therefore, the Settlement Agreement is valid and enforceable. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that is Defendant’s Motion to Enforce Settlement, Doc. [68], is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motions, Docs. [65] & [66], are DENIED.

Dated this 11th day of September 2023 | “| / | ATTHEW T. SCHELP UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE