The opinion of the court was delivered by: Mihm, District Judge.
This case is before the Court on the Motions of Plaintiff to
enforce the settlement and to join party. The issue on these
Motions is whether the Court should enforce an alleged oral
settlement agreement between the parties, where the settlement
agreement encompasses both state law and federal law causes of
actions. The Court finds that it should not. After reviewing
the briefs and affidavits submitted by the parties, and
hearing oral arguments, the Court submits the following
findings of fact and conclusions of law pursuant to Rule 52(a)
of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
1. Plaintiff, Lee Buchbinder (hereinafter "Buchbinder"), was
formerly employed by one or more of the corporate Defendants.
Subsequent to the termination of his employment in 1985, he
filed several pieces of litigation. In the instant action, he
alleges that he was discharged on the basis of his age, in
violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act,
29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq. Local 536 of the United Food and
Commercial Workers Union, of which Buchbinder is a member, also
filed a lawsuit in this Court seeking enforcement of an
arbitrator's decision which had reinstated Buchbinder to
2. Buchbinder also filed an action in Illinois state court,
seeking recovery for an alleged breach of a written contract
of employment between Buchbinder and Weisser Optical Company
and Weisser Companies, Inc.
3. Phillip Hirsch (hereinafter "Hirsch"), president of the
corporate Defendants, had not been named a party to any of
this litigation prior to June 8, 1987, when the Tenth Circuit
Court of Illinois allowed Buchbinder to amend his complaint to
allege an intentional interference with the contract of
employment by Hirsch.
4. From May until December of 1986, Buchbinder's counsel and
counsel for Defendants had continuing discussions concerning
potential settlement of the three actions filed by Buchbinder.
The substantive provisions which were negotiated during these
discussions were reported at each step by defense counsel to
Defendants' principal, Hirsch.
5. On December 8, 1986, this Court was advised by counsel
for the parties that this matter had been settled.
6. On January 23, 1987, Buchbinder's counsel tendered a
written agreement to Defendants' attorney for the signature of
Phillip Hirsch. Defendants' attorney made minor,
non-substantive modifications to the agreement.
7. According to the settlement agreement, all three court
cases were to be settled for one lump settlement amount, with
no apportionment among the various underlying claims.
8. On February 17, 1987, Defendants' attorney advised
Plaintiff's counsel that Hirsch refused to execute the
9. In response to Hirsch's refusal to sign the settlement
agreement, Buchbinder filed a Motion to Enforce the Settlement
Agreement, in the form proposed by his counsel on January 23,
1987, and filed a related Motion to Join Hirsch, in his
individual capacity, as a party Defendant. The basis of the
Motion to Join Hirsch as a party Defendant was that he had
allegedly agreed to personally guarantee the settlement