Achziger v. IDS Property Casualty Insurance Company
3:14-cv-05445
W.D. Wash.Nov 9, 2017Background
- Achziger sued IDS in state court asserting breach of contract and Washington CPA class claims; case removed to federal court. Motion for class certification was denied and Ninth Circuit declined review.
- After the court granted partial summary judgment on coverage, the parties negotiated a partial settlement: IDS would pay $9,000 to Achziger in exchange for release of his individual claims while preserving his class-related interests.
- Parties exchanged multiple settlement drafts and emails in March–June 2017 that included a confidentiality term, a release limited to individual claims, and a clause about not contesting Ninth Circuit jurisdiction.
- Negotiations continued after the Supreme Court decided Microsoft Corp. v. Baker (Jun 2017), which held that voluntary dismissal does not create a final decision under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and limited uses of partial dismissals to create appellate jurisdiction.
- Achziger later refused to finalize the settlement, invoking Baker and asserting impossibility/frustration defenses; IDS moved for summary judgment to enforce the settlement.
- The Court found the parties had agreed to material terms, rejected Achziger’s defenses, and granted IDS’s motion, ordering dismissal paperwork by a set date.
Issues
| Issue | Achziger's Argument | IDS's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a binding settlement existed | No binding agreement; ongoing open material terms (esp. jurisdiction language) | Parties objectively agreed on material terms (amount, confidentiality, limited release, jurisdiction) | Binding settlement existed; material terms were agreed subject to formalization |
| Whether settlement terms included a promise that neither party would contest Ninth Circuit jurisdiction | Parties never finalized language; IDS could still contend lack of jurisdiction | IDS agreed it would not contest jurisdiction in any form; parties’ communications show assent | Court enforces term that neither party will contest Ninth Circuit jurisdiction |
| Whether Baker made performance impossible or discharged duties (impossibility) | Baker forecloses the settlement structure, rendering performance impossible | Baker does not precisely govern this context; risk was borne by Achziger; impossibility not shown | Impossibility defense rejected; hypothetical difficulties insufficient |
| Whether frustration of purpose discharges the agreement | Baker substantially frustrates principal purpose of the settlement | Washington has not adopted frustration-of-purpose as applied; Achziger bore risk | Frustration defense rejected; even if doctrine applied, Achziger failed to show burden or substantial frustration |
Key Cases Cited
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (summary judgment standard) (discussing burden on moving party)
- Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574 (summary judgment standard) (nonmoving party must present significant probative evidence)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (summary judgment standard) (genuine issue for trial requires sufficient evidence)
- Callie v. Near, 829 F.2d 888 (9th Cir. 1987) (district court equitable power to summarily enforce settlement agreements)
- Microsoft Corp. v. Baker, 137 S. Ct. 1702 (Supreme Court 2017) (voluntary dismissal does not create a final decision under § 1291; limits on transforming interlocutory denial of class cert into final judgment)