White v. Dover Bay Specialty Insurance Company, 2:23-cv-05110

Plaintiffs Kirk White and Tanya White filed a damages lawsuit, which was removed to federal court by defendant Dover Bay Specialty Insurance Company.
The parties participated in mediation and signed a written settlement agreement, which was notarized and included payment terms.
Defendant paid the agreed settlement amount ($12,500), and plaintiffs initially accepted and deposited the check.
Plaintiffs later attempted to reopen mediation, claiming they believed the settlement was unfair after reconsidering their damages.
The court held an evidentiary hearing to determine if the settlement agreement was valid and enforceable under Louisiana law.
Plaintiffs returned the settlement funds before the hearing, and testified about their understanding and intent regarding the agreement.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Validity of Settlement	White alleged he wanted to reopen the agreement, believing it was unfair after signing.	Dover Bay argued a valid, written, and signed settlement existed and had been fulfilled.	The parties entered into a valid, enforceable settlement; plaintiff's dissatisfaction after signing is not grounds for invalidation.
Effect of Plaintiff's Change of Heart	White argued for invalidation due to reconsideration and dissatisfaction with the settlement amount.	Dover Bay argued that a change of mind or bad bargain is not cause to undo a binding agreement.	Court held a change of heart or belief of unfairness is insufficient to rescind a valid settlement.
Claims of Fraud or Duress	Plaintiffs denied signing under fraud or duress, but challenged enforcement.	Dover Bay argued no evidence supported claims of fraud, duress, or other vitiating factors.	No fraud or duress found; consent was valid and informed.
Enforceability of Settlement Under Louisiana Law	White questioned if the agreement met legal standards for enforceability.	Dover Bay maintained that all contractual elements under state law were satisfied.	Court found all elements satisfied—offer, acceptance, written instrument, and mutual intent.

Suire v. Lafayette City-Par. Consol. Gov’t, 907 So. 2d 37 (La. 2005) (party seeking to rely on a compromise bears the burden to show intent to settle)
Maggio v. Parker, 250 So. 3d 874 (La. 2018) (compromise instrument governed by general contract rules)
Read v. Willwoods Cmty., 165 So. 3d 883 (La. 2015) (requires a meeting of the minds for contracts)
Joseph v. Huntington Ingalls Inc., 347 So. 3d 579 (La. 2020) (courts do not relieve parties of bad bargains)