The opinion of the court was delivered by: Judge Conner
Presently before the court are cross-motions (Case No. 3:01-CV-1182, Docs. 515, 517; Case No. 1:04-CV-0832, Docs. 383, 385) to enforce a settlement agreement entered into between plaintiffs and the Percudani defendants, Gene Percudani, Chapel Creek Homes, Inc., Raintree Homes, Inc., Homes by Vintage, Inc., Y-Rent, Inc., and Chapel Creek Mortgage Banker, Inc. (hereinafter "defendants"). Plaintiffs move this court to order defendants to provide full and final payment of $300,000, in compliance with the terms of the settlement agreement. (See Case No. 3:01-CV-1182, Docs. 515, 516; Case No. 1:04-CV-0832, Docs. 383, 384). Defendants move the court to: 1) deny plaintiffs' motion to enforce settlement agreement; and 2) enforce the terms of the settlement agreement as written, wherein payment of the $300,000 settlement fund shall be remitted to plaintiffs' counsel to cover attorney's fees and costs, that no part of the settlement fund shall be paid to plaintiffs, and that such fund shall not be provided until plaintiffs' counsel obtains full and complete approval of plaintiffs and a general release of claims from all plaintiffs. (See Case No. 3:01-CV-1182, Docs. 517, 520; Case No. 1:04-CV-0832, Docs. 385, 388). For the reasons that follow, the court will grant plaintiffs' motion to enforce settlement agreement and deny defendants' cross-motion to enforce settlement agreement.
I. Background and Procedural History
Lead plaintiffs Eddie and Sharon Lester, on behalf of a plaintiff class, commenced a class action against real estate developer Gene Percudani and multiple defendants on June 28, 2001. (See Case No. 3:01-CV-1182, Doc. 1). After dismissal of the class action, on April 16, 2004, plaintiffs Pablo and Ivette Acre along with over 150 pursued a civil action against the defendants and Chase Manhattan Mortgage Corporation, William K. Spaner, and Dominick P. Stranieri. (Case No. 1:04-CV-0832, Doc. 1). On November 3, 2008, the court directed that the disputes be resolved through mediation. (See Case No. 3:01-CV-1182, Doc. 455; Case No. 1:04-CV-0832, Doc. 312). Concluding in February 2009, the mediation resulted in an oral settlement agreement between the parties, in which defendants agreed to pay plaintiffs a sum of $300,000 in return for a release of all claims by plaintiffs against defendants. On February 20, 2009, the court issued an order (Case No. 3:01-CV-1182, Doc. 474; Case No. 1:04-CV-0832, Doc. 331) staying the case and closing it for statistical purposes only in light of the agreement. After the February 20, 2009 Order, plaintiffs' counsel began obtaining written releases from plaintiffs regarding the settlement of claims against defendants. During this time, the parties exchanged drafts of a written settlement agreement. After considerable delay, plaintiffs provided a final draft of the settlement agreement to defendants' counsel on June 5, 2010. Unsuccessful in securing an executed written settlement agreement from defendants' counsel, plaintiffs filed a motion (Case No. 3:01-CV-1182, Doc. 506; Case No. 1:04-CV-0832, Doc. 374) to enforce settlement on August 6, 2010. Plaintiffs withdrew this motion when defendants executed the written settlement agreement on September 3, 2010. (Case No. 3:01-CV-1182, Doc. 511; Case No. 1:04-CV-0832, Doc. 380)
The written settlement agreement provides for a general release of all claims by plaintiffs against defendants, as provided in the first paragraph:
The parties jointly prepare this written settlement agreement stating the settlement terms in full ("Settlement Agreement"). This Settlement Agreement is executed by the Raintree Defendants counsel and by counsel for Plaintiffs. This Settlement agreement shall also include that plaintiffs' counsel provide an executed release, approved by these parties, to be signed by each Plaintiff, or in the case of plaintiff's [sic] who filed bankruptcy, an order approving settlement signed by the bankruptcy court judge, where applicable. Each release will provide a general release of claims against the Raintree Defendants and incorporate by reference the terms of this settlement agreement. (Case No. 3:01-CV-1182, Doc. 515, Ex. C; Case No. 1:04-CV-0832, Doc. 383, Ex. C).
The second paragraph of the settlement states the terms of payment, as conditioned upon the release of claims by plaintiffs against defendants:
Raintree Defendants shall pay $300,000.00 to plaintiffs' counsel at the same time that said releases or bankruptcy orders are provided to Gene Percudani, which represents payment of attorneys fees and costs towards plaintiffs' counsels' fees and costs associated with the prosecution of cases of Lester, et al. V. Percudani, et al., case no. 3:01-CV-1182 and Acre, et al. v. Chase, et al., case no. 1:04-CV-0832 and Crespo: James v. Chase, et al., case no. 2008-0752. (Id.)
Plaintiffs contend that they have provided all required releases and bankruptcy orders to defendants, in accordance with the terms of the settlement agreement. (See Case No. 3:01-CV-1182, Doc. 515, Ex. D; Doc. 516, at 2; Case No. 1:04-CV-0832, Doc. 383 Ex. D; Doc. 384, at 2). Claiming full compliance with the terms of the agreement in obtaining all releases and bankruptcy orders, plaintiffs allege that defendants have refused to tender the $300,000 in settlement funds to plaintiffs' counsel in bad faith and thus in violation of the terms of the settlement agreement. (Id.) In response, defendants argue that they are not obligated to provide the settlement funds until defense counsel is provided with copies of releases which have been approved by defendants, indicating that no part of the settlement funds will be remitted to plaintiffs. (Case No. 3:01-CV-1182, Doc. 517 ¶ 26; Case No. 1:04-CV-0832, Doc. 385 ¶ 26).
On June 9, 2011, plaintiffs filed a motion (Case No. 3:01-CV-1182, Doc. 515; Case No. 1:04-CV-0832, Doc. 383) to enforce settlement agreement. Defendants filed a cross-motion (Case No. 3:01-CV-1182, Doc. 517; Case No. 1:04-CV-0832, Doc. 385) to enforce settlement agreement on June 10, 2011, in opposition to plaintiff's motion. The motions have been fully briefed and are now ripe for disposition.
II. Standard of Review*fn1
Settlement agreements are governed by the ordinary principles of contract law. In re Cendant Corp. Prides Litig., 233 F.3d 188, 193 (3d Cir. 2000). In Pennsylvania, the formation of a settlement agreement, as with any contract, requires that "the minds of the parties should meet upon all terms, as well as the subject matter, of the [agreement]." Mazzella v. Koken, 739 A.2d 531, 536 (Pa. 1999). "An agreement to settle a lawsuit, voluntarily entered into, is binding upon the parties, whether or not made in the presence of the court, and even in the absence of a writing." Green v. John H. Lewis & Co., 436 F.2d 389, 390 (3d Cir. 1970).
The parties are bound by the obligations of a valid settlement agreement duly entered into by counsel with the authority of their clients. Pugh v. Super Fresh Food Markets, Inc., 640 F. Supp. 1306, 1307 (E.D. Pa. 1993). If the parties agree on the essential terms of an agreement and intend them to be binding, "a contract is formed even though they intend to adopt a formal document with additional terms at a later date." Capek v. Mendelson, 821 F. Supp. 351, 357 (E.D. Pa. 1993). The parties must mutually assent to the terms and conditions of the settlement agreement to create ...