Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Pompeo v. Exelon Corp.

United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division

February 19, 2014



AMY J. ST. EVE, District Judge.

The Court adopts in part, rejects in part, and modifies in part Magistrate Judge Valdez's January 14, 2014 Report and Recommendation [73]. The parties' September 12, 2013 oral settlement agreement is binding. Status hearing set for 3/17/14 is stricken and reset to 3/4/14 at 8:30 a.m. Before the next status date of 3/4/14, the parties must meet and confer to memorialize the oral settlement agreement into writing as required by the ADEA. See 29 U.S.C. § 626(f)(1)(A).


Before the Court are Defendants' objections to Magistrate Judge Valdez's Report and Recommendation addressing Defendants' Motion for an Order Compelling Plaintiff to Sign and Comply with Written Terms of Settlement [45]. On January 14, 2014, Judge Valdez recommended that the Court deny Defendants' motion. On January 28, 2014, Defendants objected to Judge Valdez's Report and Recommendation as provided by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b)(2) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). For the following reasons, the Court adopts in part, rejects in part, and modifies in part Judge Valdez's Report and Recommendation as consistent with this Order. In sum, because the oral settlement agreement of September 12, 2013 controls the parties' dispute and is a valid, enforceable contract under Illinois law, the Court grants Defendants' motion to enforce the oral settlement agreement.[1]


"When a magistrate judge prepares a report and recommendation for a district court, the governing statute provides that the district court shall make a de novo determination' with respect to any contested matter." Kanter v. C.I.R, 590 F.3d 410, 416 (7th Cir. 2009) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C)). As the Seventh Circuit explains:

De novo review requires the district judge to decide the case based on an independent review of the evidence and arguments without giving any presumptive weight to the magistrate judge's conclusion. The district judge is free, and encouraged, to consider all of the available information about the case when making this independent decision. A district judge may be persuaded by the reasoning of a magistrate judge or a special master while still engaging in an independent decision-making process.

Mendez v. Republic Bank, 725 F.3d 651, 661 (7th Cir. 2013). "The magistrate judge's recommendation on a dispositive matter is not a final order, and the district judge makes the ultimate decision to adopt, reject, or modify it." Schur v. L.A. Weight Loss Ctrs., Inc., 577 F.3d 752, 760 (7th Cir. 2009); see also Willis v. Caterpillar Inc., 199 F.3d 902, 904 (7th Cir. 1999); Rule 72(b)(3).


On May 17, 2013, Plaintiff Michael Pompeo filed a four-count Amended Complaint against Defendants Exelon Corporation and Exelon Generation Company, LLC alleging violations of the Age Discrimination and Employment Act ("ADEA"), 29 U.S.C. § 621, et seq., the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), 42 U.S.C. § 12101, and the Illinois Human Rights Act, 735 ILCS 5/1-103. On August 6, 2013, the Court referred this matter to Magistrate Judge Valdez for settlement and on September 12, 2013, Judge Valdez held a settlement conference. Judge Valdez's September 12, 2013 minute entry states: "Settlement conference held on 9/12/2013. Parties reach terms of settlement. Stipulation of dismissal to be filed before the District Court. All matters relating to the referral of this action having been resolved, the case is returned to the assigned judge." (R. 40.) Although the parties stated the terms of the oral settlement agreement before Magistrate Judge Valdez on September 12, 2013, the terms were not recorded on the record.

According to Defendants, on September 18, 2013, they sent a draft written settlement agreement to Pompeo's counsel and on September 19, 2013, Pompeo's counsel emailed back that she had only minor comments, but that Pompeo wanted to see a copy of his personnel file before he signed the agreement. Defendants did not provide Pompeo with the copy of his personnel file because it had been over a decade since Pompeo had been an employee. At the status hearing before the Court on October 1, 2013, Pompeo's counsel informed the Court that Pompeo had changed his mind and that he would not sign the written settlement agreement. The Court thereafter gave Defendants until October 15, 2013 to file a motion to enforce the settlement agreement. Instead of filing a motion to enforce the oral settlement agreement, Defendants filed a Motion to Compel Plaintiff to Sign and Comply with the Written Terms of the Settlement. On October 15, 2013, the Court referred Defendants' motion to Judge Valdez. On January 14, 2014, Judge Valdez issued a Report and Recommendation denying Defendants' motion based on language in the written settlement agreement allowing Plaintiff to revoke his acceptance of the agreement within seven days after he signed the written agreement. On January 28, 2014, Defendants filed their objections to the Report and Recommendation.


The parties do not dispute that Illinois law governs the purported oral and written settlement agreements. See Auto-Owners Ins. Co. v. Websolv Computing, Inc., 580 F.3d 543, 547 (7th Cir. 2009) ("Courts do not worry about conflict of laws unless the parties disagree on which state's law applies.") (internal citation and quotation marks omitted); see also Abbott Labs. v. Alpha Therapeutic Corp., 164 F.3d 385, 387 (7th Cir. 1999) ("Local contract law governs the construction and enforcement of settlement agreements."). Settlement agreements are enforced like any other contract. See In re Illinois Bell Tele. Link-Up II, 994 N.E.2d 553, 558, 373 Ill.Dec. 784 (1st Dist. 2013) (settlement "agreements are construed and enforced under principles of contract law"). "A valid and enforceable contract requires an offer, an acceptance, and consideration." Sheth v. SAB Tool Supply Co., 990 N.E.2d 738, 754-55, 371 Ill.Dec. 550, 566-67 (1st Dist. 2013). Also, "[l]ike any other contract, the essential terms of the settlement agreement must be definite and certain for it to be enforceable." City of Chicago v. Ramirez, 366 Ill.App.3d 935, 946, 852 N.E.2d 312, 324, 304 Ill.Dec. 62, 74 (1st Dist. 2006); see also Downs v. Rosenthal Collins Group, L.L.C., 963 N.E.2d 282, 297, 357 Ill.Dec. 329, 344 (1st Dist. 2011) ("For an oral contract to be valid and enforceable, its terms must be definite and consistent."). A contract modification must satisfy the same elements for a valid contract (offer, acceptance, and consideration) and preexisting obligations do not suffice for consideration." All American Roofing, Inc. v. Zurich Am. Ins. Co., 404 Ill.App.3d 438, 449-50, 934 N.E.2d 679, 68, 343 Ill.Dec. 355, 365 (1st Dist. 2010).

In her Report and Recommendation, Magistrate Judge Valdez explained that the "parties reached the terms of settlement during the conference, and the parties were brought into open court to recite the agreed terms." (R. 73, R&R, at 2.) Judge Valdez further stated "[n]either party advised there were any open material terms to be negotiated" and the "[c]ourt's minute order indicated that a settlement had been reached and directed the parties to file a stipulation of dismissal before the District Court." ( Id. ) Also, Judge Valdez concluded that "[h]aving been present throughout the negotiation period, the Court is satisfied that the parties had a meeting of the ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.