Opinion
C.A. No. 16-167M
05-02-2017
CYNTHIA PIMENTEL v. DOLLAR TREE STORE, INC.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Pending before me for a report and recommended disposition (28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B)) is Defendant's Motion to Enforce. (Document No. 14). Plaintiff opposes the Motion. (Document No. 16). For the following reasons, I recommend that Defendant's Motion be GRANTED.
Discussion
Defendant contends that the parties entered into a valid and binding settlement agreement at a Settlement Conference held on January 5, 2017, and that Plaintiff has refused to sign the settlement documents. Thus, Defendant seeks enforcement of the settlement by the Court. Plaintiff's counsel represents that they made repeated efforts to contact Plaintiff following the settlement conference without success. However, they assert that they recently communicated with her and she "directed" them to file an Opposition to Defendant's Motion. Plaintiff has indicated, through counsel, that it was not her intent to resolve the case at the Settlement Conference "on the terms proposed at that time" and that a "language barrier" impacted her ability to engage in the settlement conference in a meaningful manner.
The law is clear that an oral agreement to settle reached at a court-sanctioned mediation is enforceable. Advanced Voice Commc'n, Inc. v. Russell Gain d/b/a Widmore Enter., C.A. No. 09-056ML, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17167 (D.R.I. Feb. 25, 2010). Here, the parties participated in a Settlement Conference with the Court's assistance on January 5, 2017. The Settlement Conference was held in Judicial Chambers with the undersigned acting in the capacity of Mediator. Both sides were represented by capable counsel, and the undersigned participated fully in the process, communicating in joint session and in caucus with counsel as well as directly with Plaintiff and a corporate representative of Defendant. After meeting for approximately four hours and engaging in a ten-step back and forth negotiation, the parties reached agreement on a settlement dollar amount as well as the other standard terms of settlement such as a release, nondisparagment and confidentiality. The undersigned took notes regarding the negotiations which reflect that a settlement was reached in a manner entirely consistent with the terms contained in Defendant's Motion to Enforce (filed under seal). In addition, despite the Plaintiff's current representation that she did not understand and agree to the settlement, the undersigned has no doubt from my involvement in the mediation that Plaintiff was fully informed, understood and agreed to the settlement terms with the advice and assistance of able and competent counsel. She was able to effectively communicate with the undersigned as well as with her counsel during my interactions with her. The undersigned can only conclude that Plaintiff had a change of heart at some point after agreement was reached at the Settlement Conference. However, a change of heart is not a valid basis upon which to refuse to follow through in effectuating a final and binding settlement agreement. Accordingly, I recommend that Defendant's Motion to Enforce (Document No. 14) be GRANTED.
Notably, in their Objection, Plaintiff's counsel do not dispute the Defendant's representation of the agreed settlement terms. --------
Any objection to this Report and Recommendation must be specific and must be filed with the Clerk of the Court within fourteen days of its receipt. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); LR Cv 72. Failure to file specific objections in a timely manner constitutes waiver of the right to review by the District Court and the right to appeal the District Court's decision. See United States v. Valencia-Copete, 792 F.2d 4, 6 (1st Cir. 1986); Park Motor Mart, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co., 616 F.2d 603, 605 (1st Cir. 1980). /s/ Lincoln D. Almond
LINCOLN D. ALMOND
United States Magistrate Judge
May 2, 2017