MARKOGLU v. FEDERATED CAPITAL CORP.
2:15-cv-07508
D.N.J.Nov 8, 2017Background
- Plaintiff Anesti Markoglu sued Federated Capital under the FCRA and FDCPA alleging an unauthorized/inaccurate credit inquiry.
- The parties attended multiple settlement conferences; on March 13, 2017 they reached a $1,500 on-the-record settlement agreement.
- The court ordered Federated Capital to finalize terms and pay; Federated provided a fully executed mutual general release and proofs of compliance, and plaintiff cashed the settlement check.
- Markoglu filed repeated letters asserting he had not received fully executed documents and alleging defendants submitted fraudulent travel exhibits; he moved to vacate the settlement, reopen the case, add a defendant, and seek sanctions.
- Federated moved to enforce the settlement and for sanctions against further frivolous filings. The magistrate judge heard argument and reviewed submissions.
- The court found an enforceable settlement and recommended denying Markoglu’s motions to vacate/reopen/amend and granting Federated’s motion to enforce; sanctions motions were reserved or denied as to plaintiff’s request.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Existence of a binding settlement | No valid settlement exists because terms weren’t properly consummated | Parties reached an on-the-record agreement and executed written release | Court: Binding settlement existed (on‑record agreement + executed release) |
| Whether settlement should be vacated | Settlement procured by fraud / documents were fraudulent; compliance with court order not met | No fraud; provided emails, executed release, receipts showing compliance | Court: Plaintiff failed to show compelling grounds or fraud; settlement not vacated |
| Reopening case / amending complaint | Case should be reopened and an additional defendant added due to alleged ongoing issues | Settlement disposes of claims; enforcement appropriate | Court: Motions to reopen/amend denied |
| Sanctions | Plaintiff sought sanctions against defendant | Defendant sought sanctions for frivolous filings and letters | Court: Plaintiff’s sanctions request without merit; enforcement motion granted; decision on defendant’s sanctions reserved pending compliance |
Key Cases Cited
- Cooper Labs. v. Int’l Surplus Lines Ins. Co., 802 F.2d 667 (3d Cir.) (settlement agreements enforced under contract principles)
- Nolan v. Lee Ho, 120 N.J. 465 (N.J. 1990) (New Jersey law favors upholding settlements and requires clear and convincing proof to vacate)
- Jennings v. Reed, 381 N.J. Super. 217 (App. Div. 2005) (compelling circumstances required to vitiate a settlement)
- Wolkoff v. Villane, 288 N.J. Super. 282 (App. Div. 1996) (capacity to understand settlement is central in deciding vacatur)