FRANCOIS v. GUERRIER (2020)

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 1:28

On appeal from the judgment following an order allowing the defendants' joint motion to enforce settlement agreement, the plaintiff contends that the motion judge did not rule independently on the merits of the motion in the present case, but instead merely adopted the ruling of a different judge of the Superior Court on a similar motion in a case involving her sister and the same defendants but in a different procedural posture.³ In particular, the plaintiff asserts (as she did below) that Attorney Hanford Chiu was at no time authorized to settle her case, and that in any event Attorney Grant Hecht on December 29, 2018, wrote to Attorney Morenike Adams to say, “[P]lease allow this email to serve as our formal rejection of this offer. Please be further advised that as you have made a counter, our demand is now off the table and rescinded.”

The brief written order of the motion judge does not reflect the basis on which he ruled that the parties entered into a binding settlement agreement, saying simply that “[t]his Court sees no reason to depart from Judge Ames's ruling in the parallel case ․” We accordingly are unable to discern the factual or legal predicate for the judge's ruling. Accordingly, we vacate the judgment and remand the matter to the Superior Court for further findings and a rationale explaining the basis for a conclusion that the alleged settlement agreement should be enforced or, in the alternative, for entry of any appropriate revised order and judgment.

So ordered.

FOOTNOTES

3.   The plaintiff's sister had failed to oppose the motion to enforce settlement agreement and was seeking reconsideration of the resulting dismissal.