Preview:

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MAINE LUIS RAMIREZ,
ET AL.,

PLAINTIFFS v. AUSTIN J. DECOSTER, D/B/A/ DECOSTER EGG FARM, ET AL., DEFENDANTS

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Civil No. 98-186-P-H

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER After a grueling day of mediation in a putative class action, the lawyers and those clients who were present agreed on the most important disputed issues. The mediator then drafted a statement of the terms they had accepted. All recognized that, since the lawsuit purported to be a class action, any settlement agreement would have to be detailed and in writing to obtain court approval. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 23. As the mediator's version was circulated for signature, one of the

defendants' lawyers added the following clause: "This mediation agreement contemplates that a written Settlement Agreement will be executed upon agreement to all material terms." During the succeeding weeks, the lawyers drafted a detailed and comprehensive settlement agreement. But the defendants failed to provide what the plaintiffs deemed acceptable security for the financial installment obligation the defendants had agreed to. After a succession of court deadlines passed with no written settlement agreement filed for court approval, I

issued decisions on pending motions. The decisions altered the parties' respective negotiating positions. As a result, the defendants now refuse to go forward with the purported settlement. The plaintiffs have brought this motion to enforce the alleged agreement. Upon a de novo review and after an evidentiary hearing, I agree with the Magistrate Judge that the agreement is enforceable. I. FACTS The factual allegations of the Amended Complaint are described extensively in earlier rulings. See, e.g., Order on Pls.' Mot. for Class Cert. and Defs.' Mot. for Summ. J. (Mar. 31, 2000) ("Order of March 31, 2000") (order denying class certification and granting most of defendants' motion for summary judgment) at 3. For this motion, suffice it to say that the plaintiffs seek to represent a class of Mexican or Hispanic workers at the DeCoster egg farms. They charge DeCoster with racial/ethnic discrimination and a variety of other federal and state law violations. Id. At an early stage I granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the government of Mexico, a ruling that was on appeal at the time of the mediation. Order on Defs.' Mot. to Dismiss Pl. Estados-Unidos Mexicanos, at 1 (Aug. 9, 1999) (order granting motion to dismiss government of Mexico). Difficult motions for class certification and for summary judgment also were filed and were pending at the time of mediation. See Order of March 31, 2000, at 2-3. After I had invested substantial time and energy in working on the issues raised by the motions, the parties notified me that they were engaged in substantive and promising settlement negotiations. As a result, they asked me

2

several times to delay ruling on their motions, and I consented. Order on Mot. to Stay Any Further Action on the Case Pending Mediation (Jan. 10, 2000). In fact, the parties had engaged former United States Senator Rudman to mediate their dispute. Senator Rudman presided at a full day of mediation on February 21, 2000, here in Portland. Evidentiary Hearing ("Evid. Hr'g") Ex. 34 (Test. of Senator Warren B. Rudman) at 2-3 ("Rudman Test."); Evid. Hr'g Tr. at 76 (Test. of Att'y Karen Wolf); Tr. at 157-58 (Test. of DeCoster Att'y Timothy O'Brien). Austin DeCoster, the principal defendant, was present; so were one of the named individual plaintiffs, Luis Ramirez, and two representatives of the government of Mexico. Rudman Test. at 39-40; Tr. at 16 (Test. of Att'y Wolf). There were three lawyers, a paralegal and an interpreter (who was also a migrant labor organizer) for the plaintiffs; five lawyers for DeCoster; and a nonlawyer representative for the non-DeCoster defendants.1 Id. at 16, 24-25. Toward the end of a long day of intensive mediation (the majority of it was spent on financial terms, Rudman Test. at 2-3), the parties reached agreement on the amount of settlement and certain other matters. Id. at 21; Tr. at 18 (Test. of Att'y Wolf), 159-60 (Test. of Att'y O'Brien). Senator Rudman dictated to a paralegal the terms he believed the parties had agreed on as follows:
In the matter of Estados Unidos Mexicanos et al. v. Austin J. DeCoster, et al. Agreement reached under the auspices of mediation by Senator Warren B. Rudman on February 21st, 2000 in
I described the relationships among the various defendants in my Order of March 31, 2000. Order on Pls.' Mot. for Class Cert. & Defs.; Mot. for Summ. J. at 2 n.1.
1

3

Portland, Maine. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Plaintiffs agree to settle this matter against all Defendants for the sum of $6 million dollars. Payments shall be as follows: $1.5 million upon approval of the Court $4.5 million over a period of 24 months The Plaintiffs agree to use their best efforts to help lift the boycott of DeCoster with the various retail establishments. Consideration will be given to rehiring certain former employees of DeCoster. Parties agree to make a good faith effort to deal with other collateral but not financial issues with the Court.

When the document was passed around, DeCoster attorney McGivney added a sentence:
6. This mediation agreement contemplates that a written Settlement Agreement will be executed upon agreement to all material terms.

Evid. Hr'g Ex. 1 at 1-2. Attorney Wolf signed the document for the plaintiffs; Attorney Schreiber signed for the defendants; and Senator Rudman signed as Mediator. Id. After Senator Rudman left to catch a plane, the lawyers tried to proceed with their negotiations, but discovered they were too exhausted. Tr. at 30-33 (Test. of Att'y Wolf). They resumed the next day at 11:00 a.m., the plaintiffs bringing a draft of another document. Id. at 32-33. After some progress, they adjourned, with the defendants' lawyers promising to draft a comprehensive document for presentation to the Court. Id. at 33-34. Negotiations went on thereafter by phone, fax and mail. See, e.g., Evid. Hr'g Ex. 5 (Letter from Att'y Schreiber to Att'y Friedman, Mar. 6, 2000); Evid. Hr'g Ex. 9 (Fax from Att'y Friedman to Att'y O'Brien, et al., Mar 22, 2000); Evid. H'rg Ex. 13 (3/27/00 Draft
4

Settlement Agreement). As the date approached when I was required by statute to report publicly the pending motions as having been under advisement for more than six months, see 28 U.S.C.

Download DBH_06012001_2-98cv186_RAMIREZ_V_DECOSTER.pdf

Maine Law