Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Jaguar v. Tiffany

United States District Court, D. Massachusetts

August 1, 2019

BLACK JAGUAR, WHITE TIGER, FOUNDATION, and EDUARDO SERIO, Plaintiffs,
v.
ANDREA TIFFANY and DOES 1-20, Defendants.

          MEMORANDUM AND ORDER RE: PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO ENFORCE SETTLEMENT AND TO COMPEL ANDREA TIFFANY TO SIGN RETRACTION LETTER (DOCKET ENTRY # 35)

          MARIANNE B. BOWLER, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

         Pending before this court is a motion to enforce a settlement agreement and to compel defendant Andrea Tiffany (“defendant”) to sign a retraction letter filed by plaintiff Black Jaguar, White Tiger, Foundation (“BJWT”) and plaintiff Eduardo Serio (collectively “plaintiffs”).[1] (Docket Entry # 35). Defendant opposes the motion. (Docket Entry # 44). After listening to oral argument, this court took the motion (Docket Entry # 35) under advisement.

         BACKGROUND

         Plaintiffs filed this action in May 2018 alleging that defendant and unidentified individuals published numerous false and malicious statements of fact about plaintiffs on various social media platforms. Based on diversity jurisdiction, they assert state law claims for defamation and tortious interference with actual and prospective business relationships. (Docket Entry # 1).

         At a February 6, 2019 status conference, the issue of a possibility of settlement arose. After a recess to allow defendant to speak to her counsel, the parties returned to the courtroom and plaintiffs' counsel suggested reading terms of a settlement reached by the parties into the record.[2] Immediately before plaintiffs' counsel read the terms into the record, defendant asked if she had to agree to the settlement “right now, ” to which this court responded that plaintiffs' counsel is “going to dictate the terms. Then they will be reduced to writing . . . [a]nd then you will have the opportunity to review it with your counsel and sign.” (Docket Entry # 48, p. 14). Plaintiffs' counsel then proceeded to read certain terms of the purported settlement into the record, including that defendant “will execute a correction/retraction letter which my clients will be free to use to attempt to restore their reputation to the extent necessary.” (Docket Entry # 48, p. 15). After reading various terms into the record, defendant stated that she understood the terms. (Docket Entry # 48, p. 19). When asked if she understood that “this will be the substance of the agreement, ” the following exchange took place:

The Defendant: Yes. I mean, there's a little detail that I think will get worked out later, but I understand.
The Court: And what is that?
The Defendant: The letter and stuff like this. I don't really understand what they're wanting with this.
[Defendant's Counsel]: The details of the settlement will be worked out in a written Settlement Agreement . . .
The Court: So do you understand all of the terms that have been set forth today?
The Defendant: Yes. I would like to see them in writing though. I'm not good verbally hearing things. I need to visually see it.

         (Docket Entry # 48, pp. 19-20).

         On February 28, 2019, this court convened a second status conference during which the dispute regarding the content of the retraction letter continued. Plaintiffs' counsel stated his clients needed the retraction letter to accept a settlement that had no money thus indicating the materiality of the retraction letter. (Docket Entry # 49, p. 19). At the conclusion of the conference, this court gave defendant two weeks to write a retraction letter and set a further hearing to determine if plaintiffs could “live with that statement.” (Docket Entry # 49, pp. 27-28). Plaintiffs' counsel agreed. (Docket Entry # 49, p. 28).

         In a March 14, 2019 email to plaintiffs' counsel, defendant's counsel attached a letter stating that defendant “has agreed to sign” the letter (henceforth, “March 14 retraction letter”). (Docket Entry # 35-4). Plaintiffs' counsel responded by email the following day that the March 14 retraction letter was acceptable except for a typographical error in the spelling of plaintiff Eduardo Serio's name. (Docket Entry # 35-5). In a reply email, defendant's counsel attached a corrected version of the March 14 retraction letter, stated he would ask defendant to sign the final settlement agreement, and thanked plaintiffs' counsel for his “help in resolving this matter.” (Docket Entry # 35-6). ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.