Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-01963/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-01963-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 446
Nature of Suit: Americans with Disabilities Act - Other
Cause of Action: 42:12181 Americans with Disabilities Act

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

David Normann, )

)

Plaintiff, ) 2:12-cv-1963 JWS

)

vs. ) ORDER AND OPINION

)

DDRA Arrowhead Crossing, LLC, ) [Re: Motion at docket 26]

)

Defendant. )

)

I. MOTION PRESENTED

At docket 26, defendant DDRA Arrowhead Crossing, LLC (“DDRA”) asks the

court to enforce its settlement agreement with plaintiff David Normann (“Normann”). 

Normann’s response is at docket 30. DDRA’s reply is at docket 31. Oral argument was

requested, but it would not assist the court.

II. BACKGROUND

Normann sued DDRA in September of 2012. His complaint seeks relief

pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12181, et seq. and the

Arizonans with Disabilities Act, A.R.S. §41-1492. DDRA answered denying liability. An

amended complaint was filed. On March 18, 2013, DDRA answered the amended

complaint, again denying liability. Just over two weeks later, on April 3, 2013, DDRA

Case 2:12-cv-01963-JWS Document 34 Filed 06/12/13 Page 1 of 8
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

filed the pending motion seeking to enforce a settlement agreement which it claims was

reached by the parties. There is no dispute about the fact that the parties entered

settlement discussions. However, there is a marked difference of opinion about

whether a settlement agreement was reached.

III. DISCUSSION

In order to resolve the issue at hand, it is necessary to march through many of

the events which have transpired between counsel in this case. To begin with it is

necessary to note that DDRA used both an Arizona law firm, Renaud Cook Drury

Mesaros, PA, and a Florida law firm, Baker & Hostetler LLP, in dealing with Normann

and his lawyer. The Arizona firm is the only one which has appeared in this litigation. 

The Florida firm, however, provided the draft Settlement Agreement discussed below. 

A copy of the draft Settlement Agreement along with copies of various communications

between representatives of the parties are included in the motion papers.

Normann retained an expert who prepared a report concerning the condition of

the real property which is the subject of this lawsuit. A copy of that report was provided

to DDRA. Thereafter, Normann’s lawyer sent an email to DDRA’s counsel–both an

Arizona and a Florida lawyer were addressed–dated February 21, 2013, which read in

part as follows:

Please let me know if we should expect some sort of response from your

client to our expert report. We presently remain open to a negotiated

settlement based on the report – one that includes both barrier removal

and payment of Mr. Normann’s fees and costs.1

Thereafter, on February 26, the Florida lawyer responded in a letter that was

Doc. 30-1 at 2. 1

-2-

Case 2:12-cv-01963-JWS Document 34 Filed 06/12/13 Page 2 of 8
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

both emailed and mailed to Normann’s counsel along with which the Florida lawyer

transmitted the draft Settlement Agreement. In the cover letter, the Florida lawyer

explained that the document should be familiar to Normann’s lawyer, because “[t]he

form is the same [one] we have used in the past.” Notably, the draft Settlement 2

Agreement contained a provision which expressly provided for the payment of

Normann’s fees and costs. The amount of fees and costs was left blank in the draft, 3

so the next day Normann’s lawyer responded in an email stating that he was preparing

“a fee and cost demand.” On February 28, Normann’s lawyer emailed the Florida 4

lawyer that the attorney fees were of $7,177.08, costs were $4,377.90, and future fees

and costs were $1,500.00 making for a total demand of $13,054.98. That 5

communication also suggested various changes to and excisions from the text of the

draft Settlement Agreement.

After reviewing the February 28 communication, the Florida lawyer responded on

March 8, writing that DDRA agreed to all the suggested changes, except that the

amount of attorney fees remained for resolution. It appears that the Florida lawyer and

6

Normann’s lawyer also had a telephone conversation on March 8, for in an email dated

March 12, Normann’s counsel indicated that in a follow up to a March 8 conversation,

Doc. 27-1 at p. 1. 2

Id. at p. 4 ¶ 5. 3

Doc. 29-1 at p. 1. 4

Id. at pp. 2-3. 5

Id. at p. 4 (a duplicate also appears at p. 5.) 6

-3-

Case 2:12-cv-01963-JWS Document 34 Filed 06/12/13 Page 3 of 8
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

his client would agree to reduce the total for attorney fees and costs to $12,250. The 7

email stated that the offer to accept $12,250 would expire on March 14. It also included

supporting fee and cost data for examination by the Florida lawyer. The Florida lawyer

responded on March 12, in an email questioning some of the supporting data and

offering to pay $9,100. On March 13, 2013, Normann’s lawyer responded: “To get this

done, we will go down to $12,000 as a final offer–together with all other terms

previously agreed upon. This offer will expire at the close of business Thursday, March

14, 2013.”

8

In light of the parties’ inability to agree on the fees and costs, the Florida lawyer

emailed a proposal on March 13 which would rewrite paragraph 5 of the draft

Settlement Agreement so that it replaced a statement of the amount of fees and costs

with a procedure for determining what the amount would be. To this Normann’s lawyer 9

responded the same day:

No deal. We have not resolved all aspects of the remdial work. As I have

repeatedly stated, the deal on the timing of the remedial work was

contingent on a comprehensive settlement, including resolution of fees

and costs. All aspects must be resolved simultaneously. We will not

agree to a two-year barrier removal time frame without resolving fees and

costs at the same time.10

Norman’s lawyer also proposed several options to break the log jam on the amount of

fees and costs which would lower the amount in exchange for shortening the time for

Id. at p. 6

7

Id. at p. 12. 8

Id. at p. 13. 9

Id. at p. 14 10

-4-

Case 2:12-cv-01963-JWS Document 34 Filed 06/12/13 Page 4 of 8
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

barrier removal. The Florida lawyer responded with an email which said he would get

back to Normann’s lawyer “one way or another before the deadline you gave me.”11

This generated a response from Normann’s lawyer addressed to both the Florida

lawyer and one of the Arizona lawyers indicating he would deal directly with the Arizona

lawyer, because in his view the Florida lawyer had completely overlooked the “no deal”

statement in an earlier communication.

After Normann’s lawyer advised Arizona counsel for DDRA that he wished to get

the case moving by way of discovery activity, the Arizona lawyer acknowledged that he

had been out of the loop, but upon reviewing the various emails it appeared to him that

Normann’s lawyer and the Florida lawyer had “agreed on everything except your

attorneys’ fees and costs.” The court fully agrees with this assessment. The record 12

amply demonstrates that at all times, the parties effort was to settle all issues including

the amount of fees and costs to be paid. The record also amply demonstrates that they

were unable to reach an agreement. 

To support its position, DDRA first makes a scurrilous attack on Normann’s

lawyer pointing out that he has represented Normann in 36 disability act cases in this

court. An examination of the court’s records shows that statement to be true, but it is

neither relevant nor proper. Those other cases have no bearing on the issue before the

court in this case. There is no stigma associated with bringing numerous lawsuits, so

long as they do not disclose a pattern of frivolous litigation. No such pattern emerges

Id. at p. 15. 11

Id. at p. 18. 12

-5-

Case 2:12-cv-01963-JWS Document 34 Filed 06/12/13 Page 5 of 8
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

from the 36 cases, a large majority of which have been settled on terms acceptable to

both sides.

Seeking to bolster its attempt to paint a picture of Normann’s counsel as a

litigious scalawag, DDRA points to the decision by Judge Bolton in George v. Arizona

Mills, LLC. This court has reviewed Judge Bolton’s decision and the docket in that

13

case. Having done, so this court agrees with Normann’s lawyer that the facts in Arizona

Mills establish that it is distinguishable and offers no instruction pertinent to the dispute

at hand–although this court also finds that Normann’s lawyer is too grudging in

accepting the correctness of Judge Bolton’s decision.

DDRA also rummages around in the actions taken by the parties leading up to

the preparation of Normann’s expert report. Even if it is true that Normann or his lawyer

did not pursue the case in the most efficient or cost-effective manner, that has no

bearing on whether or not the parties actually reached a settlement. 

Next, DDRA asserts that the amount of attorney fees and costs was not a

material term of the settlement. That may be true in some cases including some cited

by DDRA. However, for purposes of deciding what someone will demand by way of a

settlement materiality is in the eye of each settling party. Moreover, just how material

the amount of fees and costs actually is to both sides in this case is clearly disclosed in

the exchanges laid out above. Throughout, Normann has maintained that he wanted a

“complete” settlement which necessarily had to include an agreement on fees and

costs. While the difference between Normann’s lowest offer with respect to fees and

Case No. 2:09-cv-0089 SRB (D. Ariz. 2009).

13

-6-

Case 2:12-cv-01963-JWS Document 34 Filed 06/12/13 Page 6 of 8
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

costs the highest amount offered by DDRA is not a lot of money, that difference was

sufficiently material to DDRA that it walked away from the settlement in order to save a

couple of thousand dollars. It may be true that the parties will both now expend

substantially more funds to resolve this dispute, but the fault lies as much with DDRA as

with Normann.

DDRA also contends that the fee demand is unreasonable. DDRA says

Normann demanded payment for future expenses, that his lawyer indulged in excessive

billing practices and that some of the costs demanded are not recoverable costs. Even

if all that is true, it has no bearing on the question whether the parties reached a

settlement.

In its reply DDRA advances several points. DDRA contends first that Normann

cannot rely on a course of dealing to help support his position. Even if that is true,

which seems somewhat doubtful to the court given the Florida lawyer’s involvement in

other disability act cases involving DDRA, it makes no difference. There is no need to

resort to a course of dealing here. The undisputed facts reveal there was never an

agreed settlement.

In its reply DDRA also urges that the February 21 email is not part of the parties

negotiations. In all candor, the court cannot conceive how DDRA’s counsel can make

that statement. That email plainly represents the first step in the negotiations and lays

out quite clearly Normann’s position on what must be in any settlement.

DDRA also urges that there is no ambiguity in the parties’ settlement

negotiations. The court agrees. It is quite clear that Normann was negotiating for a

settlement which included his fees and costs and DDRA was unwilling to agree to the

-7-

Case 2:12-cv-01963-JWS Document 34 Filed 06/12/13 Page 7 of 8
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

numbers advanced by Normann.

Finally, DDRA bemoans the fact that failure to grant the motion to enforce the

settlement agreement will allow the case to proceed increasing the cost of the litigation

significantly and will likely require a hearing to establish what fees and costs Normann

will recover. That would be unfortunate, but that certainly happens in many lawsuits. It

is no reason to force a “settlement” on a party who never agreed to a settlement.

IV. CONCLUSION

For the reasons above, the motion at docket 26 is DENIED. The suspended pretrial deadlines begin running again on the date this order is filed.

DATED this 11th day of June 2013.

 /S/ 

JOHN W. SEDWICK

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

-8-

Case 2:12-cv-01963-JWS Document 34 Filed 06/12/13 Page 8 of 8