[brief] On April 12, 2023, following argument, [...] rendered his decision from the bench and denied Plaintiff’s OTSC.  (2T).  After summarizing the facts of the matter, reading the December 20, 2022 memorialization of the settlement into the record, and summarizing the parties’ positions, he made the following determinations.  First, [...] noted that a motion to enforce a settlement uses the same standard of review as a summary judgment motion, i.e., requiring that the court draw legitimate inferences in favor of the nonmoving party.  (2T10:16-11:1).  Additionally, he found that the key question was “whether or not the post-settlement communications between counsel negated the ‘settlement’ of contract breach as delineated in the transcript. ” (2T13:13-16).  To that end, [...] averred that the issue was whether or not there were facts which supported Defendant’s position on this issue and she had a right to repudiate the settlement.  (2T14:10-12).  Regarding the back and forth between counsel and whether it constituted reopening negotiations, a counteroffer, etc., Judge --- \(^2\) *Willingboro Mall Ltd. v. 240/242 Franklin Ave., LLC*, 421 N.J. Super. 445, 453 (App. Div. 1011), aff’d, 215 N.J. 242 (2013).  Shanahan found these issues frivolous and meritless.  (2T14:12-17).  In other words, he viewed the issue as “whether or not the material terms placed on the record in of themselves without being memorialized in a written agreement are enforceable. ” (2T14:21-24).  On this point, [...] referenced the introductory provisions of the written Agreement, highlighting that it “clearly . . . flushe[d] out the tentative agreement placed on the record. ” (2T14:25-16-8).  However, he found the statutory review revocation period, paragraph 11 of the written Agreement, controlling.  (2T17:21-18:15).  [...] found this provision to be particularly important because it “explain[ed Plaintiff]’s position that they’re walking away from any material term of the settlement, not contained solely in the . . . transcript . . . .” (2T18:16-21).  To that end, although not briefed by the parties or explicitly argued by defense counsel at oral argument, [...] stated that he reviewed the OWBPA and found that it did not permit an individual to waive “any right or claim under [it], unless it’s knowing or voluntarily. ” (2T18:22-19:11).  He continued that the Act gives an individual a period of at least 21 days in which to consider the agreement, and the agreement provides for a period of at least seven days following the execution of the --- 3  At argument, defense counsel merely asserted that paragraph 11 gave Defendant “a right to review [and] rescind. ” (1T9:17-18).  agreement, to give the individual the right to revoke the agreement, and that the agreement shall not become effective or enforceable until the revocation period has expired.  [(2T19:20-20:2). ]  In reference to the statutory review and revocation period provision of the written Agreement contained in paragraph 11, [...] concluded that the language within this provision “codif[ied] the requirements of the [OWBPA].” (2T20:3-7).  Consequently, he held that it was “clear that the [D]efendant has the right to revoke” and that because Defendant revoked the settlement within the timeframe pursuant to the OWBPA, “there was no settlement. ”  (2T20:7-13).  On April 17, [...] entered a conforming order denying Plaintiff’s OTSC, declining to enforce the settlement, and remanding the matter back to the hearing officer.  (Pa135-Pa136).