United States District Court, D. Kansas
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
A. ROBINSON, CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
February 21, 2019, just before the deadline passed for his
class certification motion, Plaintiff Melvin Wilson filed a
Status Report explaining that the parties had reached a
settlement of this case in principle. On March 22, 2019, Plaintiff
filed another Status Report, advising that Plaintiff executed
and tendered the parties' settlement agreement and
general release to Defendants on or about March 7, 2019, but
had not received word back from Defendants about the status
of finalizing the matter. Before the Court is Plaintiff's
Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement (Doc. 63). Defendants
have not responded to the motion, and the time to do so has
expired. Therefore, the Court may grant this motion
Plaintiff's motion, and the settlement agreement
submitted to the court in camera, demonstrate that the motion
should be granted. Settlements are favored by the Tenth
Circuit,  and “[t]he trial court has the power
to summarily enforce a settlement agreement entered into by
the litigants while the litigation is pending before
it.” In resolving issues of contract formation
and construction of a purported settlement agreement, the
Court applies state law. The parties do not dispute that Kansas
law applies here.
enforceable, a settlement must contain a “meeting of
the minds on all essential terms and the parties must intend
to be bound.” To ascertain whether the parties intended
to be bound by a settlement agreement, the court determines
whether the parties' “outward expression of assent
is sufficient to form a contract.” “The
fact that the parties contemplate the subsequent execution of
a formal instrument as evidence of their agreement does not
necessarily imply they have not already bound themselves to a
definite and enforceable contract.”
record reflects that the parties had a meeting of the minds
when they drafted the settlement agreement submitted to the
Court in camera, and that they intended to be bound by that
agreement. Despite several opportunities to weigh in and
challenge this assertion, Defendants stand mute. Therefore,
the Court finds that there are no disputed material facts
about whether the settlement agreement executed by Plaintiff
represents the parties' oral agreement and should be
enforced, and therefore grants Plaintiff's motion. Under
the terms of the settlement agreement, Defendants shall
tender to Plaintiff the amount specified in ¶ 1.
Plaintiff is awarded his reasonable attorneys' fees and
expenses incurred litigating the instant motion.
IS THEREFORE ORDERED BY THE COURT that
Plaintiff's Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement (Doc.
63) is granted. Judgment shall be entered in Plaintiff's
favor under the terms set forth in the parties'
confidential settlement agreement. Plaintiff is awarded
reasonable fees and costs incurred litigating the motion to
IS SO ORDERED.
 Doc. 59.
 Doc. 61.
 See D. Kan. R. 6.1(d)(1)
(providing fourteen-day response time).
 D. Kan. R. 7.4.
See Desktop Direct, Inc. v. Dig.
Equip. Corp., 993 F.2d 755, 758 (10th Cir. 1993),
aff'd, 511 ...