Niedermeier v. Duckett

D. Massachusetts

Niedermeier v. Duckett

DecidedJune 28, 2018

Docket1:15-cv-11663

StatusUnknown

This text of Niedermeier v. Duckett (Niedermeier v. Duckett) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Massachusetts primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Niedermeier v. Duckett, (D. Mass. 2018).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

___________________________________________ ) CHRISTINE M. NIEDERMEIER, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. ) 15-11663-FDS WIGGIN & NOURIE, P.A.; DANIEL ) DUCKETT; and CYRUS RILEE, III, ) ) Defendants. ) ___________________________________________)

ORDER ON MOTION TO REOPEN

SAYLOR, J.

On May 25, 2018, the parties reported that a settlement had been reached, and the Court entered an order of dismissal. Plaintiff Christine Niedermeier has since moved to reopen the case, disputing certain language defendants included in the general release and stipulation of dismissal form. It appears the parties dispute whether plaintiff’s claims are released as to non- party Axis Insurance and whether plaintiff must execute the release before receiving the settlement proceeds. As to the first issue, the Court finds that there was a valid contract between plaintiff and defendants Wiggin & Nourie, P.A., Daniel Duckett, and Cyrus Rilee. See Conte v. Bank of America, N.A., 52 F. Supp. 3d 265 (D. Mass. 2014) (“The essential elements of a valid contract are an offer, an acceptance, and consideration.”). In exchange for the agreed-upon confidential settlement amount, plaintiff would release and discharge all claims against the named defendants. That settlement agreement is enforceable. It does not appear, however, that the parties ever had a meeting of the minds as to whether Axis Insurance should be released as part of the settlement. As to the second issue, the execution of the release and payment of the proceeds are consideration for each other. It is immaterial whether they occur simultaneously, or in any

particular sequence that is reasonably simultaneous. Accordingly, plaintiff has not shown good cause to reopen the case, and the motion to reopen is DENIED. The parties are directed to execute a general release consistent with this order, and defendants are directed to pay the settlement proceeds reasonably simultaneously with the execution of the release. So Ordered.

/s/ F. Dennis Saylor F. Dennis Saylor IV Dated: June 28, 2018 United States District Judge

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

___________________________________________ ) CHRISTINE M. NIEDERMEIER, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. ) 15-11663-FDS WIGGIN & NOURIE, P.A.; DANIEL ) DUCKETT; and CYRUS RILEE, III, ) ) Defendants. ) ___________________________________________)

ORDER ON MOTION TO REOPEN

SAYLOR, J.

On May 25, 2018, the parties reported that a settlement had been reached, and the Court entered an order of dismissal. Plaintiff Christine Niedermeier has since moved to reopen the case, disputing certain language defendants included in the general release and stipulation of dismissal form. It appears the parties dispute whether plaintiff’s claims are released as to non- party Axis Insurance and whether plaintiff must execute the release before receiving the settlement proceeds. As to the first issue, the Court finds that there was a valid contract between plaintiff and defendants Wiggin & Nourie, P.A., Daniel Duckett, and Cyrus Rilee. See Conte v. Bank of America, N.A., 52 F. Supp. 3d 265 (D. Mass. 2014) (“The essential elements of a valid contract are an offer, an acceptance, and consideration.”). In exchange for the agreed-upon confidential settlement amount, plaintiff would release and discharge all claims against the named defendants. That settlement agreement is enforceable. It does not appear, however, that the parties ever had a meeting of the minds as to whether Axis Insurance should be released as part of the settlement. As to the second issue, the execution of the release and payment of the proceeds are consideration for each other. It is immaterial whether they occur simultaneously, or in any

particular sequence that is reasonably simultaneous. Accordingly, plaintiff has not shown good cause to reopen the case, and the motion to reopen is DENIED. The parties are directed to execute a general release consistent with this order, and defendants are directed to pay the settlement proceeds reasonably simultaneously with the execution of the release. So Ordered.

/s/ F. Dennis Saylor F. Dennis Saylor IV Dated: June 28, 2018 United States District Judge

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Niedermeier v. Duckett, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/niedermeier-v-duckett-mad-2018.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack