AELE LAW LIBRARY OF CASE SUMMARIES:
Civil Liability of
Law Enforcement Agencies & Personnel
Back to list of subjects Back to Legal Publications Menu
Settlement Agreements
Monthly La Journal article: Settlement Offers and Agreements in Federal Civil Rights Lawsuits, 2020 (9) AELE Mo. L.J. 101.
|
A man fell three stories from a window before an officer arrested him. The arrestee claimed that the officer intentionally pushed him through the window, and then lied about him possessing a gun—backed up by other officers who also lied. The arrestee was convicted and sentenced to eight years in prison, but his conviction was overturned. He sued the officer who allegedly pushed him for excessive force. In an agreement between the plaintiff and the city (which was not a defendant in the lawsuit), the case was settled for $5,000 to release "all claims he had or has against Gonzalez [the officer], the city, and its future, current or former officers … , including but not limited to all claims he had, has, or may have in the future, under local, state, or federal law, arising either directly or indirectly out of the incident which was the basis of this litigation." The agreement stated that the plaintiff’s attorney read and explained it to the plaintiff. Three years later, the plaintiff filed another suit, naming the city, the officer, and the officers who corroborated his story. The second lawsuit focused on the alleged lie that he possessed a gun and his subsequent prosecution, conviction, and imprisonment. The trial court dismissed the second lawsuit, awarding the city $2,131.60 for the printing of transcripts of the arrestee’s state-court criminal proceedings. A federal appeals court upheld this result. The plaintiff released all claims “arising either directly or indirectly out of the incident.” Even if “the incident” referred to his fall rather than the arrest as a whole, his claims regarding the alleged cover-up plainly “aris[e] from” the incident being covered up. The release language encompasses his claims for wrongs committed after his arrest.” Crosby v. City of Chicago, #19-1439, 2020 U.S. App. Lexis 3459, 2020 WL 562279 (7th Cir.). The plaintiff filed a federal civil rights lawsuit against a city and a number of its police officers for alleged violations of his constitutional rights. The defendants presented plaintiff with an offer of judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 68 for $10,001 and reasonable attorney's fees, expenses, and costs incurred “to the date of [the] offer,” which the plaintiff accepted. But the parties disputed the amount of the attorneys’ fees, expenses, and costs to be paid. The claims involved alleged excessive use of force during an arrest and the alleged improper issuance of three summonses for threatening behavior towards an officer, possession of an open liquor container, and littering, all of which were subsequently dismissed. A federal appeals court upheld the trial judge’s reduction of the attorneys’ reasonable hourly rate because of the simple nature of the case, and upheld the decision to lower the hours claimed through an across-the-board reduction reflecting the clerical work performed. The appeals court also overturned the decision to award the plaintiff $7,920 in attorneys’ fees for the work done preparing the fee application, since the express terms of the accepted Rule 68 offer of judgment limited the fees recoverable to those incurred to the date of the offer. That left a total award of attorneys’ fees, expenses, and costs of $20,838.99. Lilly v. City of New York, #17-2823, 2019 U.S. App. Lexis 24153, 2019 WL 3806446 (2nd Cir.). |
When a city settled a police misconduct lawsuit, it included a non-disparagement clause in the settlement agreement. The plaintiff in that case spoke about it publicly and argued that the city violated her First Amendment rights by enforcing the clause against her, withholding half of her settlement money. Overturning summary judgment for the city on the First Amendment claim concerning the enforcement of the clause, a federal appeals court ruled that the non-disparagement clause in the plaintiff’s settlement agreement amounted to a waiver of her First Amendment rights and that strong public interests rooted in the First Amendment made it unenforceable and void.In a separate claim, a local news website, asserted that the city’s alleged practice of including non-disparagement clauses in almost all settlement agreements with police misconduct claimants violated the First Amendment by interfering with its ability to report on such cases by receiving information from willing persons. The appeals court ruled that the local news website had sufficiently pleaded an “ongoing or imminent” injury in fact that is both traceable to the city's challenged conduct and redressable by the court. Summary judgment for the city on the website’s claim was therefore overturned. Overbey v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, #17-2444, 2019 U.S. App. Lexis 20598, 2019 WL 3022327 (4th Cir.).
A
man sued the City of Chicago and a number of its officers for excessive force,
false arrest, and unlawful search and seizure as well as associated claims. He
accepted an offer of judgment from the defendants under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 68(a) of $10,001 "plus reasonable attorney's fees and costs
accrued to date." The plaintiff and defendants were subsequently unable to
reach an agreement on the amount of attorneys' fees, with the plaintiff asking
for $22,190.50. After further proceedings, the court awarded $17,205.50, less
than requested. The plaintiff then requested an additional $16,773 in
attorneys' fees for the time spent litigating the fees petition. While the
defendants argued that an award of further fees would be violative of the
settlement agreement, the trial court awarded an additional $2,000 “to
compensate for time spent responding to challenges to the fees that were
unsupported and improper." The federal appeals court upheld this award,
finding that the trial court had the authority under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1988 to
award the additional fees and did so only for the conduct of the defendants
that "fell outside" the provisions of the offer of judgment. Rule
68(a) did not limit the court's authority to fashion remedies for offending
conduct. Morjal v. City of Chicago, #14-1365, 2014 U.S. App. Lexis 23980 (7th
Cir.).
The highest court in
New York ruled that a municipality in the state may withdraw from defending or
indemnifying current and former officials and employees in a civil lawsuit if they
fail to accept a reasonable settlement offer. While the context of the case was
not law enforcement activity, the reasoning would appear to also apply in that
context. Lancaster v. Incorporated Village of Freeport, #181, 2013 N.Y. Lexis
3156, 2013 NY Slip Op 7652.
A man claimed that a number of police officers
assaulted him in his home, and that a second group of officers, also present,
failed to intervene to stop the unjustified use of force, which he contended
constituted gross negligence. Claims against the second group of officers were
settled for a total of $25,000, and a signed release agreement was entered into
which stated that it covered the discharge of "all other persons"
from the plaintiff's claims. The first group of officers, who were alleged to
have assaulted the plaintiff, argued that the release covered claims against
them as well as against the second group of officers, despite the fact that
they had not signed it, paid nothing under it, and were represented by separate
counsel and insurance companies. An intermediate Michigan appeals court upheld
these officers' interpretation. The Michigan Supreme Court has now reversed,
and in so doing overturned a prior state court decision barring the use of
testimony and other extrinsic evidence outside of the language of a release
when an unnamed party asserts third-party beneficiary rights based on broad
language in a liability release, and when there is an ambiguity as to the
intended scope of the coverage of the release. The plaintiff's intent, it was
argued, had been to only settle with the second group of officers. Further
proceedings were ordered on this issue. Shay v. Aldrich, #138908, 2010 Mich.
Lexis 1700.
Civil rights plaintiff could not recover
against defendants for breach of settlement agreement once verdict was returned
in favor or defendants after they announced their refusal to abide by agreement
Smith v. Brink, 561 A.2d 1253 (Pa Super 1989).