KYLE D. MICHAUD, Plaintiff,
NEXXLINX OF MAINE INC., OPENTABLE INC., Defendants
Plaintiff KYLE D MICHAUD represented by KYLE D MICHAUD PRO SE
Defendant NEXXLINX OF MAINE INC represented by MICHAEL A. FELDMAN LAW OFFICE OF MICHAEL A. FELDMAN SETH W. BREWSTER EATON PEABODY ONE PORTLAND SQUARE
Defendant OPENTABLE INC represented by SETH W. BREWSTER EATON PEABODY ONE PORTLAND SQUARE
John C. Nivison U.S. Magistrate Judge
This matter is before the Court on Defendants’ Joint Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement (ECF No. 43), and the Motion Regarding Defendant’s Attorney Fees filed by Defendant Nexxlinx of Maine, Inc. (EFC No. 83). Through their motion to enforce the settlement, Defendants maintain that the parties entered into a binding agreement to resolve Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants. Plaintiff contends that because he did not agree to certain terms of the alleged agreement, the parties failed to reach a binding, enforceable agreement.
After consideration of the evidence, and the parties’ written arguments,  the recommendation is that the Court grant Defendants’ Joint Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement.
Findings of Fact
Based on the evidence presented at the hearing, I find, and recommend the adoption of, the following facts:
1. In July 2013, Plaintiff commenced a civil action against Defendants in which action Plaintiff alleged that he was improperly discharged from his employment (the civil action).
2. Attorney Brett Baber represented Plaintiff in the civil action.
3. By letter dated March 6, 2014, Michael Feldman, attorney for Defendant Nexxlinx in the civil action, informed Attorney Baber that Defendant Nexxlinx was prepared to pay Plaintiff $15, 000 in consideration for the resolution of the civil action. In the letter, Attorney Feldman specifically wrote in pertinent part, “Nexxlinx of Maine is willing to pay a total of $15, 000.00 in exchange for a complete release of all claims against Nexxlinx, Nexxlinx of Maine, OpenTable and all present and past employees of these companies. We would also require a confidentiality provision, a non-disparagement provision, and a no-contact provision in the ultimate settlement agreement.” (Defendants’ Joint Exh. 2.)
4. Through an e-mail communication dated March 6, 2014, Attorney Baber forwarded to Plaintiff a copy of Attorney Feldman’s March 6 letter. (Defendants’ Joint Exh. 3.)
5. Between March 6 and March 11, Attorney Baber and Plaintiff exchanged several e-mail communications related to the settlement offer and some of the issues in the case. (Defendants’ Joint Exhs. 4, 5.)
6. On or about March 11, 2014, Attorney Baber spoke on the telephone with Plaintiff about the settlement offer. During the conversation, Attorney Baber told Plaintiff that he was willing to pursue the case on Plaintiff’s behalf, but was not willing to invest money to depose a certain witness who was located in California. In the conversation, Plaintiff instructed Attorney Baber to settle the case. (Attorney Baber’s notes of conversation, Defendants’ Joint ...