In re: General Motors LLC Ignition Switch Litigation
1:14-md-02543
S.D.N.Y.Aug 17, 2021Background
- Pro se plaintiff Larry Anderson sued General Motors LLC over a defective ignition switch in a 2005 Chevrolet Cobalt, seeking damages including emotional distress.
- On April 13, 2021, the parties orally agreed to a settlement on the record before Magistrate Judge James L. Cott; the court confirmed the material terms and stated the agreement was binding and would be memorialized in a written settlement to be hand-signed and notarized by Anderson.
- New GM drafted a written settlement (the Draft Settlement Agreement), but Anderson refused to sign it; New GM moved to enforce the oral settlement and to compel Anderson to sign and notarize the draft.
- The Draft Settlement Agreement contained a release broader than the oral terms recorded in court (e.g., covering “any and all claims … arising from … the Subject Vehicle”), whereas the on-the-record agreement limited the release to the claims Anderson brought in the lawsuit.
- The District Court applied the Winston factors and other Second Circuit authorities, concluded an enforceable oral settlement existed, granted enforcement, but directed New GM to revise the written agreement to conform to the on-the-record terms and ordered Anderson to sign the revised agreement within specified deadlines. The Court denied wholesale sealing of enforcement papers, allowing limited redaction requests.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Enforceability of oral settlement announced on the record | Anderson refused to be bound absent a signed written agreement | New GM: in-court announcement created a binding settlement enforceable despite lack of signature | Court: Oral on-the-record agreement was binding; enforcement granted under Second Circuit precedent and Winston factors |
| Compel signature/notarization of written memorialization | Anderson refused to sign New GM’s drafted agreement | New GM sought order compelling Anderson to hand-sign and notarize the Draft Settlement Agreement | Court: Ordered enforcement but declined to compel signature of the unmodified draft; required GM to produce a revised agreement conforming to the oral record, then Anderson must sign within deadline |
| Scope of release (claims covered) | Anderson contends release is limited to claims he brought in this lawsuit (as recited on record) | New GM’s draft included a materially broader release covering any and all claims related to the vehicle, heirs, assigns, future claims | Court: Release must conform to the on-the-record description (limited to claims brought in the suit); broader draft language rejected |
| Sealing of settlement-related filings | (No strong public argument recorded from Anderson) | New GM sought continued sealing of several settlement-related submissions | Court: Heavy public-access presumption for enforcement motions; denied full sealing but allowed short window for parties to propose narrowly tailored redactions |
Key Cases Cited
- Mtgs. & Exp’ns, Inc. v. Tandy Corp., 490 F.2d 714 (2d Cir. 1974) (district court may summarily enforce settlements reached in proceedings before it)
- Omega Eng’g, Inc. v. Omega, S.A., 432 F.3d 437 (2d Cir. 2005) (in-court settlement announcements are particularly enforceable)
- Powell v. Omnicom, 497 F.3d 124 (2d Cir. 2007) (settling party’s change of heart does not undo an otherwise binding settlement)
- Winston v. Mediafare Ent. Corp., 777 F.2d 78 (2d Cir. 1985) (four-factor test for whether parties intended to be bound absent a signed writing)
- Ciaramella v. Reader’s Digest Ass’n, Inc., 131 F.3d 320 (2d Cir. 1997) (no single Winston factor is dispositive; consider whole record)
- Best Brands Beverage, Inc. v. Falstaff Brewing Corp., 842 F.2d 578 (2d Cir.) (contract terms that are too vague to enforce doom contract formation)