Matches in SCALES for { <scales/DocketEntry/ilnd;;1:08-cv-00599_de94> ?p ?o ?g. }
Showing items 1 to 4 of
4
with 100 items per page.
- ilnd;;1:08-cv-00599_de94 RegisterActionDate "2009-12-09" @default.
- ilnd;;1:08-cv-00599_de94 RegisterActionDescriptionText "MINUTE entry before the Honorable Jeffrey Cole: Motion hearing held. The Motion by plaintiffs counsel to Enforce Settlement Agreement 93 is denied. Only the parties to a settlement agreement have standing to enforce a settlement agreement; a party's counsel acting on his own behalf and that is what is occurring here has no standing. The arguments in the motion that a party having once settled a case cannot disavow the settlement agreement are, as basic as they are correct. A settlement agreement is a contract governed by, in this case, Illinois law. Where parties agree that there must be a formalized, executed document before any contract can be formed, even if they agree, point by point, on all the terms of a contract, the execution of that formalized agreement is a prerequisite to their being bound. Until then each party is "'free to walk away....'" See Nomanbhoy Family Ltd. Partnership v. McDonald's Corp., 579 F.Supp.2d 1071, 1095 (N.D.Ill. 2008). But that is not what occurred here. Rather, the parties acknowledged on the record at the time of the settlement conference, that their settlement agreement was immediately binding and contained all the essential terms of their respective rights and duties. That it contemplated that those terms were to be memorialized in a written document does not allow one or both of the settling parties to change their mind upon seeing the more formalized agreement. Of course, if the written document contains new terms, the affected party need not sign the written agreement. But he may not disavow the settlement agreement reached in court. See Austin v. University of Illinois at Chicago, 2008 WL 238969, 1 (N.D.Ill. 2008); Foster v. National City Bank, 2007 WL 1655250, 1 (N.D.Ill. 2007). Just as Mr. EA1DA4D is not free to disavow the settlement agreement reached in court, neither is United free to incorporate terms in the written agreement that were not agreed to at the settlement conference. The parties are urged to have a meeting to resolve the differences regarding the claimed disparities between the settlement agreement reached in court and the written agreement submitted by the defendants counsel. A further status hearing is set for 1/5/2010 at 8:30 a.m. Mailed notice (cdh, ) (Entered: 12/09/2009)" @default.
- ilnd;;1:08-cv-00599_de94 AdministrativeID "95" @default.
- ilnd;;1:08-cv-00599_de94 hasReferenceToOtherEntry ilnd;;1:08-cv-00599_de92 @default.