United States District Court, C.D. Illinois
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
I. LONG, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
cause is before the Court on Defendant's motion to
enforce settlement agreement.
Parties' request, United States District Judge Colin S.
Bruce referred this case to the undersigned in order to
conduct a settlement conference. On January 17, 2019, the
undersigned conducted a settlement conference. At the
conclusion of that conference, the Parties confirmed-on the
record-that they had reached a settlement in this case.
Accordingly, the Court gave the Parties thirty-five (35) days
within which to file a stipulation of dismissal based upon
the settlement agreement that the Parties had reached.
this thirty-five-day time period expired without the Parties
filing a stipulation of dismissal as ordered by the Court.
Therefore, on March 11, 2019, the Court ordered defense
counsel either to file a stipulation or to file a status
report indicating why a stipulation could not be submitted.
In the interim, Plaintiff filed several motions, all of which
the Court denied in light of the purported settlement
agreement reached during the settlement conference. When
defense counsel still had not filed a stipulation or a status
report on the settlement, the Court again ordered defense
counsel on May 9, 2019, to file a stipulation to dismiss or
to file a status report with the Court.
10, 2019, defense counsel finally complied. In his response,
defense counsel represented that Plaintiff was refusing to
sign the settlement agreement and the stipulation to dismiss
for various reasons. Accordingly, Defendant asked the Court
to enforce the settlement agreement that the Parties reached
on January 17, 2019. Plaintiff filed a response to
Defendant's motion to enforce the settlement agreement
that has nothing to do with the settlement agreement and does
not address why the Court should or should not enforce the
settlement agreement reached by the Parties.
Court finds that this case has been settled by the Parties
and will dismiss it as such. Oral settlement agreements are
enforceable under federal law provided that all contract
formalities have established. Taylor v. Gordon Flesch
Co., Inc., 793 F.2d 858, 862 (7th Cir. 1986).
More specifically, “Illinois law governs the
enforceability of the settlement agreement.”
Montgomery v. Village of Posen, 711 Fed.Appx. 343,
345 (7th Cir. 2018)(citing Lewis v. Sch. Dist.
No. 70, 648 F.3d 484, 486 n.1 (7th Cir.
2011)). In order to enforce an oral settlement agreement,
three elements must be shown: (1) an offer was made by one
party, (2) accepted by the other, and (3) consideration was
exchanged. Centurylink v. BBC Elec. Servs., Inc.,
2013 WL 5461097, * 1 (N.D. Ind. Sept. 26, 2013); Hyde
Park Union Church v. Curry, 942 F.Supp. 360, 363 (N.D.
Ill. 1996). The parties must knowingly and voluntarily enter
into the agreement either personally or by providing their
attorneys with authority to settle. Hartman v.
Hook-Superx Inc., 42 F.Supp.2d 854, 855 (S.D. Ind.
A settlement agreement need not be in writing, so long as
there was an offer and acceptance and there is a meeting of
the minds as to the terms of the agreement. Quinlan v.
Stouffe, 355 Ill.App.3d 830, 837, 291 Ill.Dec. 305, 823
N.E.2d 597 (2005). Like any other contract, the essential
terms of the settlement agreement must be definite and
certain for it to be enforceable. Quinlan, 355
Ill.App.3d at 837-38, 291 Ill.Dec. 305, 823 N.E.2d 597. An
evidentiary hearing regarding the formation and terms of a
settlement agreement may be appropriate when there is a
disputed issue on that point and additional evidence or
testimony is required to satisfactorily resolve the issue.
Pritchett, 332 Ill.App.3d at 899, 266 Ill.Dec. 207,
773 N.E.2d 1277; Janssen Brothers, Inc., 12
Ill.App.3d at 843, 299 N.E.2d 431.
City of Chicago v. Ramirez, 366 Ill.App.3d 935, 946,
852 N.E.2d 312, 324 (Ill. Ct. App. 2006).
all of the elements necessary for the Court to find that the
Parties reached a settlement and to enforce that agreement
are present. Defendant made an offer to settle the case.
Plaintiff accepted that offer. Consideration was present as
part of the offer and acceptance. Nothing more is necessary.
Plaintiff confirmed his understanding of the agreement and
expressed his desire to be bound by the terms of the
settlement at the conclusion of the settlement conference.
See Tape #UR-B, January 17, 2019, 12:22 p.m.
Plaintiff cannot now change his mind or seek to include other
terms and conditions to the settlement agreement that was not
part of the agreement reached by the Parties in January 2019.
IS, THEREFORE, RECOMMENDED:
1. That the Court grant Defendant's motion to
enforce settlement .
2. That this case be dismissed with prejudice and
that all pending motions be ...