United States District Court, D. Kansas
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
A. ROBINSON CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
March 6, 2019, Plaintiff Christine Brock filed a Notice of
Settlement. Subsequently, the Court issued an order
administratively terminating the case and providing a
deadline for the parties to file a stipulation of dismissal
on or before April 22, 2019. This deadline passed and no
stipulation was filed. On August 13, 2019, Plaintiff filed a
“Motion to Reopen Case, ” explaining that
Defendant had “failed to uphold its obligations arising
pursuant to the settlement agreement[.]” The Motion to
Reopen was granted. Before the Court is Plaintiff's Motion
to Enforce Settlement Agreement (Doc. 20). Defendants have
not responded to the motion, and the time to do so has
expired. Therefore, the Court may grant this motion
motion, coupled with the settlement agreement, demonstrate
that the motion should be granted on the merits. 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. 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
record reflects that the parties had a meeting of the minds
when drafting the settlement agreement, and that they
intended to be bound by that agreement. Despite the
opportunity to weigh in and challenge this assertion,
Defendant stands 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, Defendant shall: (1) tender to Plaintiff $2000.00;
(2) cause its matter currently pending in the District Court
of Johnson Country Kansas to be dismissed with prejudice; (3)
cease collection of the alleged debt in the Collection
Action; (4) eliminate Plaintiff's alleged debt from her
responsibility; and (5) shall not sell the alleged debt to
anyone else. Plaintiff is awarded her reasonable
attorneys' fees and expenses incurred litigating the
IS THEREFORE ORDERED BY THE COURT that
Plaintiff's Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement (Doc.
20) is granted. Judgment shall be entered in
Plaintiff's favor under the terms set forth in the
parties' settlement agreement. Plaintiff is awarded
reasonable fees and costs incurred litigating the motion to
IS SO ORDERED.
 Doc. 16.
 Doc. 17.
 Doc. 18 at 1.
 Doc. 19.
See D. Kan. R. 6.1(d)(1)
(providing fourteen-day response ...