United States District Court, D. Maine
KYLE D. MICHAUD, Plaintiff,
NEXXLINX OF MAINE, INC. et al., Defendant.
JON D. LEVY, District Judge.
Defendants have moved to enforce the settlement agreement they contend was reached by the parties in March 2014. Defendants' Joint Motion for Enforcement of Settlement Agreement, ECF No. 43. Plaintiff opposes the motion asserting that he was "coerced" by his former attorney to accept the settlement and that the purported settlement was not sufficiently definite as to give rise to a binding agreement. Plaintiff has also filed his Objection to Magistrate Judge's Order, ECF No. 64, and an Amended Motion for Reconsideration of Court Order, ECF No. 66. Both of these motions relate to the court's order entered on May 21, 2014, denying Plaintiff's request for an in camera review of his affidavit and various documents attached to it.
An evidentiary hearing will be required in order for the court to act on the motion to enforce. Courts do not "summarily enforce a purported settlement agreement if there is a genuinely disputed question of material fact regarding the existence or the terms of that agreement." Malave v. Carney Hosp., 170 F.3d 217, 220 (1st Cir. 1999); see also McGee v. Cartoon Newtork, Inc., 383 Fed.Appx. 12, 13 (1st Cir. 2010). Because there are such questions in this case, it is ORDERED that this matter is referred for an evidentiary hearing and recommend decision by a Magistrate Judge.
Plaintiff has filed a notice, ECF No. 70, in which he appears to concede that the Court properly denied his earlier request for in camera review. Accordingly, the Court finds that Plaintiff's Objection to Magistrate Judge's Order, ECF No. 64, and Amended Motion for Reconsideration of ...