Samuel v. Aron

CHRISTOPHER SAMUEL, Plaintiff, v. EVE ARON, Defendant.

No. 19-CV-5229 (MKB) (TAM)

United States District Court, E.D. New York

September 14, 2022

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

TARYN A. MERKL, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

On September 12, 2019, Christopher Samuel (“Plaintiff”) initiated this action against Eve Aron (“Defendant”). (See Complaint, ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff alleges that Defendant fraudulently induced him to provide money as an investment opportunity in Defendant's horse training business. (Id.; see also Amended Complaint (“Am. Compl.”), ECF No. 20.) Presently before the Court is Plaintiff's motion to enforce settlement. (May 24, 2022 Mot. to Enforce Settlement (“Pl.'s Mot.”), ECF No. 41.) For the reasons discussed herein, the Court respectfully recommends that Plaintiff's motion to enforce settlement be granted.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY^[1]

On July 7, 2021, the case was referred to mediation and on September 17, 2021, Plaintiff filed a letter requesting a conference because “everything requested of defendant has not been provided to the mediator.” (July 7, 2021 ECF Order Referring Case to Mediation; Pl.'s Sept. 17, 2021 Letter ECF No. 32.) The Court held a conference on October 7, 2021 and again referred the case to the EDNY Mediation Panel at the parties' request. (Oct. 7, 2021 ECF Minute Entry and Order; Oct. 7, 2021 ECF Order Referring Case to Mediation.) On November 16, 2021, a report of mediation was filed indicating that the case was settled. (Nov. 16, 2021 Report of Mediation Settled.) During the mediation, the parties agreed to settle the claims for $45,000 and the parties later represented to the Court that Defendant's payment was due by January 3 2022.^[2] (May 9, 2022 Transcript (“Tr.”), ECF No. 45, at 6:19-7:1, 7:19-8:4; Dec. 13, 2021 Joint Status Report, ECF No. 34.)

On December 2, 2021, Plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se, filed a letter requesting another conference with the Court, in part to understand the “next steps in case the agreed-on money isn't received.” (Pl.'s Dec. 2, 2021 Letter, ECF No. 33.) In response, the Court directed the parties to file a stipulation of dismissal or a joint status report by December 17, 2021. (Dec. 3, 2021 ECF Order.) On December 13, 2021, the parties informed the Court that the mediation successfully resulted in a settlement but that “the agreement does provide the defendant until January 3, 2022[,] to make the payment necessary to implement the settlement agreement.” (Dec. 13, 2021 Joint Status Report, ECF No. 34.)

On January 4, 2022, Plaintiff filed a letter informing the Court that Defendant had not paid the settlement the parties had agreed on by January 3, 2022. (Pl.'s Jan. 4, 2022 Letter, ECF No. 35.) On January 18, 2022, defense counsel renewed a previous motion to withdraw as counsel. (Jan. 18, 2022 Mot. to Withdraw, ECF No. 36, see also Apr. 6, 2021 Mot. to Withdraw, ECF No. 29.) In response, the Court scheduled a status conference for February 8, 2022, and directed Defendant Eve Aron to personally appear at the conference. (Jan. 19, 2022 ECF Scheduling Order.) The Court also directed defense counsel to provide a copy of the scheduling order to Defendant. (Id.)

Ms. Aron did not appear at the February 8, 2022 status conference. (Feb. 8, 2022 ECF Minute Entry and Order.) At the conference, Plaintiff and defense counsel provided an update regarding the status of the settlement and defense counsel's motion to withdraw; the Court reserved decision on defense counsel's motion. (Id.) The Court also scheduled another status conference for March 8, 2022, and again directed Defendant Aron to personally appear at the conference. (Id.) The parties were directed to serve Ms. Aron with notice of the March 8, 2022 status conference at any address they had and electronically. (Id.) Defense counsel was also directed to call Ms. Aron and inform her of the March 8, 2022 status conference and the Court's order directing her to appear at the conference. (Id.) On March 8, 2022, defense counsel filed a letter and attached a FedEx confirmation demonstrating that he had “served a copy of the Court's order of February 8, 2022[,] on Ms. Aron at the only address that [he] [had] for her.” (Mar. 8, 2022 Def. Counsel Letter, ECF No. 37; see also FedEx Tracking Confirmation, ECF No. 37-1.)

Defendant did not appear at the March 8, 2022 status conference. (Mar. 8, 2022 ECF Minute Entry and Order.) At the conference, the parties again provided a status update regarding the settlement, and the Court denied defense counsel's motion to withdraw without prejudice to refile a motion that conformed with E.D.N.Y. Local Rule 1.4.^[3] (Id.) The Court also scheduled another status conference for May 9, 2022, and again directed Defendant Aron to personally appear at the conference. (Id.) The parties were directed to serve Ms. Aron with notice of the May 9, 2022 status conference at any address they had and electronically. (Id.) Defense counsel was also directed to call Ms. Aron and inform her of the May 9, 2022 status conference and the Court's order directing her to appear at the conference. (Id.) On April 19, 2022, more than three months after the agreed upon deadline for Defendant to pay Plaintiff, Plaintiff received a check for $45,000 from Defendant, “which subsequently bounced due to insufficient funds.” (Pl.'s Decl., ECF No. 41, ¶ 4; see also Pl.'s Mot., ECF No. 41, Ex. C.)

Defendant, yet again, failed to appear at the May 9, 2022 status conference. (May 9, 2022 ECF Minute Entry and Order.) At the conference, Plaintiff represented that he intended to file a motion to enforce the parties' settlement. (Id.) Accordingly, the Court inquired of the parties as to the terms of the settlement and set a deadline for the instant motion. (Id.) The Court also directed Plaintiff “to serve the motion on Defendant using any methods available and to file an affirmation of service in support of the motion.” (Id.) Additionally, the Court informed defense counsel that if he chose to re-file his motion to withdraw, he was directed “to file his motion to withdraw in conformity with EDNY Local Rule 1.4, including an affidavit and proof of service, by 5/13/2022.” (Id.) Defense counsel was also directed to serve Defendant with the Minute Entry and Order “using any and all methods available.” (Id.) Thereafter, Plaintiff filed a motion for default judgment on May 12, 2022, which he then sought to withdraw upon filing a motion to enforce settlement on May 24, 2022. (Mot. for Default J., ECF No. 38; Pl.'s Mot., ECF No. 41.)

At the May 9, 2022 status conference, defense counsel represented that, in connection with the mediation in this case, the mediator had written the following email to the parties, which memorialized the key terms of the settlement:

The parties intending to be bound agree as follows: In full settlement of the claims in the referenced litigation, Aron shall pay Samuel $45,000 within 30 days of today. The parties shall enter a stipulation of dismissal with prejudice upon Samuel's receipt of the payment. The parties shall bear their own costs of fees. The parties shall confirm their agreement by (indiscernible) replying to this email - replying to all to this email confirmed.

(Tr., ECF No. 45, at 7:20-8:2.) Defense counsel further represented that he had written back to the mediator and confirmed on behalf of his client. (Id. at 8:3-4.)

As noted above, Plaintiff now moves for an order to enforce the settlement. (See id. at 7:20-8:2; Pl.'s Mot., ECF No. 41.) This motion is unopposed by Defendant, who has not been in contact with her counsel and who has continuously failed to appear following the execution of the settlement agreement, which ultimately led to this Court's granting defense counsel's motion to withdraw as her attorney. (Order Granting Mot. for Withdrawal, ECF No. 43.)

On June 17, 2022, Chief Judge Margo K. Brodie referred Plaintiff's motion to enforce settlement to the undersigned. For the reasons discussed herein, the Court respectfully recommends that Plaintiff's motion to enforce settlement be granted.

DISCUSSION

I. Legal Standards

“‘It is well established that settlement agreements are contracts and must therefore be construed according to general principles of contract law.'” Murphy v. Inst of Int'l Educ., 32 F.4th 146, 150 (2d Cir. 2022) (quoting Collins v. Harrison-Bode, 303 F.3d 429, 433 (2d Cir. 2002)) (internal quotation marks omitted in Murphy); see also Meeting & Expositions, Inc. v. Tandy Corp., 490 F.2d 714, 717 (2d Cir. 1974) (per curiam) (citing J. Kahn & Co. v. Clark, 178 F.2d 111 (5th Cir. 1949); E.L. "Bunch" Hullet, Inc. v. Universal C.I.T. Credit Corp. (In re “Bunch” Hullet, Inc.), 259 F.2d 685, 687-88 (10th Cir. 1958); Cia Anon Venezolana De Navegacion v. Harris, 374 F.2d 33, 36 (5th Cir. 1967); Autera v. Robinson, 419 F.2d 1197, 1200 (D.C. Cir. 1969); Beirne v. Fitch Sanitarium, Inc., 167 F.Supp. 652, 654 (S.D.N.Y. 1958)).

“Whether a binding agreement exists is a question of law.” Murphy, 32 F.4th at 150. “The ultimate issue . . . ‘is the intent of the parties: whether the parties intended to be bound, and if so, to what extent.'” Vacold LLC v. Cerami, 545 F.3d 114, 125 (2d Cir. 2008) (quoting Adjustrite Sys., Inc. v. GAB Bus. Servs., Inc., 145 F.3d 543, 548-49 (2d Cir. 1998)).^[4]

In New York, a contract is generally enforceable when there is “‘an offer, acceptance, consideration, mutual assent[,] and intent to be bound.'” Register.com, Inc. v. Verio, Inc., 356 F.3d 393, 427 (2d Cir. 2004) (quoting Louros v. Cyr, 175 F.Supp.2d 497, 511 n.5 (S.D.N.Y. 2001)). To form a binding contract the parties must agree on all essential terms, which are those terms that require negotiation. See Murphy, 32 F.4th at 150. There must be “a meeting of the...