Opinion
CIVIL ACTION NO. 10-1906
11-15-2012
COACH, INC., et al. Plaintiffs v. WAN ZHEN LIN, et al. Defendants.
MEMORANDUM ORDER
LINDA K. CARACAPPA
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
This matter is before the court on referral of 'Plaintiff's Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement' [Docket No. 28]. A hearing was held before the undersigned on November 6, 2012. For purposes of the hearing, the court directed on behalf of the defendant both the formal entry of appearance of counsel Attorney Scott Sigman, and the appearance of a court certified Mandarin Chinese interpreter.
At the time of the hearing, all parties and counsel agreed to the exercise of jurisdiction by the magistrate judge. The appropriate consent form was executed, and thereafter forwarded to the referring district court judge. The consent and referral was approved on November 13, 2012.
At the November 6th hearing, counsel proceeded by agreed proffer and stipulation. Although the hearing court had participated at length in settlement efforts and was familiar with the factual background of the matter, the actual written settlement agreement of October 7, 2011 was reached under the auspices of the district court.
The issue then before this hearing court was the enforcement of this same settlement agreement, under which plaintiff seeks the entry of an order of judgment including some legal fees.
II. LEGAL STANDARDS
Settlement agreements are contracts between the parties and contract principles are generally applicable to their construction. Marine Midland Realty Credit Corporation v. LLMD of Michigan. Inc., 821 F. Supp. 370, 373 (E.D. Pa. 1993). The court may enforce a settlement where there is no evidence of fraud, misrepresentation or mistake. Lance v. Metropolitan Insurance Co., 388 Pa. Super. 1, 564 A. 2d 972 (1989). To be enforceable under Pennsylvania law, a settlement agreement must possess all of the elements of a valid contract. Mazzella v. Koken, 739 A.2d 531 (PA. 1999). As with any contract, it is essential to the enforceability of a settlement agreement that "the minds of the parties should meet upon all the terms, as well as the subject matter, of the [agreement]." Id. The burden of proof is on the party attempting to assert a settlement agreement. See Max Control Sys. V. Indus. Sys., 2001 WL 1160760 (E.D. Pa. 2001). III. DISCUSSION
At the time of the hearing, there was no real objection to the validity of the settlement agreement ultimately reached. Counsel for defendant proffered that he had negotiated the agreement on behalf of defendant, and believed the terms to be reasonable considering all the factors and risks at hand. This court agrees with this assessment, and finds that defendant was represented ably by counsel at all stages.
However, of concern to the court was the fact that defendant did not speak any English at all, yet the settlement agreement was written exclusively in English. The agreement was not witnessed or certified as read or explained to defendant in any way by any Mandarin Chinese interpreter.
For there to be a 'meeting of the minds of the parties', the hearing court would need to find that defendant fully understood the written terms of the settlement agreement in spite of the language issue. This was especially so because plaintiff introduced a document, Court Exhibit #1, attached to this memorandum, showing that immediately upon execution of the settlement agreement, defendant began regular monthly payments continuing through the time of the hearing which were in contradiction of the two lump sum payments actually required by the settlement agreement.
The court is satisfied, now having the benefit of communicating with defendant through a certified interpreter and not simply family members, that defendant did understand the essential payment terms of the agreement reached. Defendant explained that she was not financially able to make the two required lump sum payments when due, but did the best she could and instead sent regular monthly amounts. The court understands the two payments were substantial and appreciates the difficulty of compliance. Nonetheless, on the question as to whether there was a 'meeting of the minds' on the settlement amount and payment terms, the court finds unequivocally that a valid and binding agreement was reached.
The court's finding does not include all aspects of the settlement agreement, as the hearing did not address the totality of the settlement agreement. Rather, our finding is limited to the issues for which enforcement is sought in plaintiff's motion. In addition to entry of judgement for the agreed upon settlement amount (with credit given for payments on account), Plaintiff additionally sought some contribution towards legal fees for the required effort in filing the motion and for representation at the hearing. This remedy was clearly provided for in the agreement. Plaintiff requested an additional award of Six Hundred Dollars ($600.), which the court finds very reasonable, and thus, will include in the award.
An appropriate Order follows: COACH, INC., et al. Plaintiffs
v. WAN ZHEN LIN, et al. Defendants.
CIVIL ACTION NO. 10-1906
COURT EXHIBIT #1
The attached document captioned "COACH V. WAN ZHEN LIN" was stipulated to by the parties on November 6, 2012, to be an exhibit to any finding by the court.
COACH V. WAN ZHEN LIN
DEFENDANTS' SETTLEMENT PAYMENT HISTORY
+---------------------------------------------------+ ¦October 26, 2011 ¦$500.00- ¦Stale Dated By Bank¦ +--------------------+----------+-------------------¦ ¦November 25, 2011 - ¦$500.00 - ¦Stale Dated By Bank¦ +--------------------+----------+-------------------¦ ¦December 20, 2011 - ¦$500.00- ¦Stale Dated By Bank¦ +--------------------+----------+-------------------¦ ¦February 20, 2012 ¦$300.00 ¦ ¦ +--------------------+----------+-------------------¦ ¦March 20, 2012 ¦$200.00 ¦ ¦ +--------------------+----------+-------------------¦ ¦April 20,2012 ¦$200.00 ¦ ¦ +--------------------+----------+-------------------¦ ¦May 15, 2012 ¦$500.00 ¦ ¦ +--------------------+----------+-------------------¦ ¦June 20, 2012 ¦$500.00 ¦ ¦ +--------------------+----------+-------------------¦ ¦July 20, 2012 ¦$500.00 ¦ ¦ +--------------------+----------+-------------------¦ ¦August 20, 2012 ¦$500.0 ¦ ¦ +--------------------+----------+-------------------¦ ¦September 15, 2012 -¦$500.00 ¦ ¦ +--------------------+----------+-------------------¦ ¦October 19, 2012 ¦$500.00 ¦ ¦ +--------------------+----------+-------------------¦ ¦Total Paid ¦$3700.00 ¦ ¦ +--------------------+----------+-------------------¦ ¦ ¦$25,000 ¦ ¦ ¦Total Settlement ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦$ 3,700 ¦ ¦ +--------------------+----------+-------------------¦ ¦Total Owed ¦$21,300 ¦ ¦ +---------------------------------------------------+