Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

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

Washington v. Stickman

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA


September 16, 2009

CHRIS WASHINGTON, PLAINTIFF,
v.
MR. STICKMAN, SUPT., SCI-GREENE, MR. STOWITZKY, DEPUTY SUPT., MAJOR CASNER, CAPTAIN COLEMAN, MR. BURNS, SECURITY LIEUTENANT, MR. MATTHEWS, HEARING EXAMINER, MR. ANSELL, HEARING EXAMINER, DOE #1 AND MR. BRUNO, ACTIVITIES MANAGER, DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Arthur J. Schwab United States District Judge

Electronically filed

ORDER OF COURT DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF COURT'S ORDER (DOC. NO. 135), DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO SET ASIDE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT (DOC. NO. 130), ORDERING MEDICAL EVALUATION, AND SCHEDULING STATUS CONFERENCE

AND NOW, this 16th day of September, 2009, after careful consideration of the mandate issued by the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit (Doc. No. 122) on May 15, 2009, plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. No. 135) of this Court's Order of July 22, 2009 (Doc. No. 132) holding that plaintiff is entitled to reopen only his "equity action"*fn1 pursuant to the terms of the settlement agreement, and not the monetary settlement portion of the agreement, plaintiff's Motion to Set Aside Settlement Agreement Due To Its Invalidity and Breach of Contract (Doc. No. 133), and the defendants' responses thereto (Doc. Nos. 134, 136), it is HEREBY ORDERED as follows:

1. The Court finds that the settlement agreement is a valid and enforceable agreement,*fn2 despite plaintiff's assertions that said agreement was never enforceable because of mutual misunderstanding and because defendants' alleged subsequent breach of conduct somehow vitiates the agreement.*fn3 Accordingly, plaintiff's Motion to Set Aside Settlement Agreement Due To Its Invalidity and Breach of Contract (Doc. No. 133) is DENIED.

2. The Court GRANTS plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. No. 135) to the extent it requests this Court to reconsider its ruling because a recent change of address deprived plaintiff of the opportunity to file his position with regard to the settlement agreement. However, after such reconsideration of the matter, the Court DENIES the ultimate relief requested therein, namely, setting aside the settlement agreement.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that on or before November 13, 2009, defendants shall make arrangements for and obtain an updated medical evaluation of plaintiff by an appropriate medical specialist regarding his request for and the necessity of any additional treatment, including surgery, as discussed on the record at the status conference this day. The Court encourages defendants to select a specialist who would perform the surgery if that is the recommendation.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a Status Conference is scheduled for December 1, 2009, at 8:45 a.m., by telephone. Counsel for Defendants shall coordinate and initiate the call to Chris Washington and contact the Court at (412) 208-7423 once all parties are on the line.


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

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