Chigirinskiy v. Panchenkova
319 F. Supp. 3d 718
| S.D. Ill. | 2018Background
- Plaintiff Shalva Chigirinskiy sued former wife Tatiana Panchenkova in 2014 over alleged marital assets; after years of litigation they executed a written Settlement Agreement in January 2018 and the case was dismissed with the Court retaining jurisdiction to enforce the Agreement.
- The Settlement Agreement released broad claims between the parties, carved out only enforcement of the Agreement and certain Connecticut litigation, contained a confidentiality clause, stated it was governed by New York law, and required the parties to "execute and exchange" within 45 business days any documents sufficient to dismiss related Russian enforcement proceedings with prejudice, each party to "bear its own costs and attorneys' fees."
- A disputed Russian enforcement proceeding before the Moscow bailiff service assessed a Bailiff’s Fee (a statutory penalty under Russian law) against Chigirinskiy; the parties disagreed which party, if any, should pay that fee and on the proper manner to terminate the Russian proceeding.
- Panchenkova moved to enforce the Settlement Agreement seeking a declaration she owes no payment to Chigirinskiy for the Russian matters; Chigirinskiy cross-moved seeking an order requiring Panchenkova to terminate the Russian enforcement with prejudice and to pay the Bailiff’s Fee and costs of the motion.
- The Court held the Agreement governs disputes over the Russian enforcement issues (section 29), applied New York contract law to construe the Agreement, considered Russian law expert submissions on the nature of the Bailiff’s Fee, and addressed a motion to seal portions of the Agreement and briefs.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Chigirinskiy) | Defendant's Argument (Panchenkova) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Settlement requires Panchenkova to pay the Russian Bailiff’s Fee | The Fee should be treated as Panchenkova’s costs/legal fees because she initiated proceedings and thus she should bear related fees | The Agreement requires each party to bear its own costs; Fee is Chigirinskiy’s debt under Russian law and not a party-to-party obligation | Panchenkova is not required to pay the Bailiff’s Fee; the Agreement does not obligate her to do so |
| Whether the Russian Enforcement Proceeding must be dismissed with prejudice and by what means | Requests order that Panchenkova must terminate the Russian proceeding with prejudice and use methods proposed by his expert | Acknowledges Agreement requires dismissal with prejudice but argues dismissal without prejudice would avoid the Fee and that some proposed methods are impractical | Court: Agreement unambiguously requires dismissal with prejudice; grants declaration that dismissal with prejudice is required but does not prescribe a specific method |
| Whether either party breached the Settlement Agreement (entitling prevailing party to fees under §25) | Claims Panchenkova breached by failing to effect dismissal within 45 days, threatening to dismiss without prejudice, hiding Agreement from Russian court, and seeking his Russian assets | Argues plaintiff’s motion is baseless; also relied on plaintiff’s representations during March communications; no breach occurred | No breach found by either side; estoppel bars enforcing the 45‑day deadline against Panchenkova; neither party entitled to recover attorneys’ fees under §25 |
| Whether Settlement Agreement and portions of briefs should be sealed | Argues confidentiality clause and privacy (including risk of press attention) justify sealing; seeks sealing of Settlement and related filings | Opposes broad sealing; seeks access and (limited) disclosure to Russian court | Motion to seal denied except limited redactions: portions referencing the Connecticut matter and certain recital/section references involving nonparties may be redacted; public access otherwise maintained |
Key Cases Cited
- Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375 (federal court may retain jurisdiction to enforce settlement when dismissal order incorporates or expressly retains such jurisdiction)
- In re Am. Express Fin. Advisors Sec. Litig., 672 F.3d 113 (dismissal does not automatically retain jurisdiction; court may retain jurisdiction when incorporated in dismissal)
- Meetings & Expositions, Inc. v. Tandy Corp., 490 F.2d 714 (2d Cir.) (district court may summarily enforce settlement agreements on motion)
- Torres v. Walker, 356 F.3d 238 (2d Cir. 2004) (settlement agreements are contracts governed by contract law)
- Schron v. Troutman Sanders LLP, 20 N.Y.3d 430 (N.Y. 2013) (New York: clear, complete written agreements are enforced according to their terms)
- Greenfield v. Philles Records, 98 N.Y.2d 562 (N.Y. 2002) (parol evidence rule; extrinsic evidence only when agreement ambiguous)
- W.W.W. Assocs., Inc. v. Giancontieri, 77 N.Y.2d 157 (N.Y. 1990) (parol evidence inadmissible to add to or vary a clear integrated agreement)
- Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006) (three-step test for common-law presumption of public access to judicial documents)
- United States v. Amodeo, 71 F.3d 1044 (2d Cir. 1995) (public access and privacy balancing factors for sealing requests)