Opinion ID: 2973677
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Mediation Agreements

Text: We agree with the district court’s conclusion that the mediation agreements signed by the Parents preclude review of their claims. See Nicklin v. Henderson, 352 F.3d 1077, 1079 (6th Cir. 2003) (holding that a settlement agreement signed by the plaintiff barred the plaintiff’s subsequent discrimination claim), cert. denied, 541 U.S. 1031 (2004); Jennings v. Metro. Gov’t of Nashville, 715 F.2d 1111, 1114 (6th Cir. 1983) (holding that the settlement resolved all claims and precluded a subsequent award). The Parents — who were represented by counsel when they signed both mediation agreements — do not claim that they entered into the agreement against their will or without knowledge of the issues involved in the settlement. Both of the agreements unambiguously 8 The district court ruled in favor of the Defendants as to the following counts: (a) Count one (breach of contract) is dismissed with prejudice as to Defendant Danbury Board of Education; (b) count five (negligent misrepresentation) is dismissed with prejudice as to all Defendants; (c) count six (intentional misrepresentation) is dismissed with prejudice as to Defendants Danbury Board of Education, Danbury Local School District, and Erie-Huron-Ottawa Educational Service Center; and (d) counts nine (educational malpractice), ten (educational neglect), eleven (breach of fiduciary duty), and thirteen (negligence) are dismissed with prejudice as to all Defendants. J.A. at 121 (Op. and Mem. at 21, Nov. 1, 2004). 9 The Parents appealed from the district court’s grant of summary judgment for the Defendants on the following claims: breach of contract, civil rights violations, intentional infliction of emotional distress, IDEA violations, ADA violations, and loss of consortium. 6 state that they resolve all issues regarding Amy’s education, and the agreements thus apply to all of the claims that are based upon incidents or disputes related to Amy’s experience at Danbury as of the date of the last agreement.10 The Parents also assert that the mediation agreements should not preclude their claims because the Defendants breached the agreements. We will only discuss the second agreement, because even if the first agreement was breached, any claims arising from that breach were resolved by the second agreement. The dispute regarding the second agreement is related to the amount of tutoring that Amy was entitled to receive during the summer of 2003. Dunham did provide some of the tutoring sessions, but he stopped working with Amy when he was informed by Leffler that he could no longer transport Amy in his vehicle. Dunham stated in an affidavit that he offered to continue tutoring Amy, either at the Parents’ business or at any other location if they were willing to drive her to meet him. Dunham informed the Parents that “[his] schedule was flexible.” J.A. at 192 (Dunham Aff. at 1, ¶ 6). Mrs. S. explained that Dunham told her about the transportation issue and suggested that she bring Amy to his home, but she declined to do so. J.A. at 392 (Mrs. S. Aff. at 3, ¶ 6). Mrs. S. also stated that “[d]uring this conversation, Dunham told me that Defendant Leffler would call me to inform me of the transportation problem and to suggest alternative tutoring over the summer. I never heard from Defendant Leffler that summer.” Id. The Parents argue that this last statement supports their contention that Defendants breached the second mediation agreement. Because the Parents do not dispute that Dunham was still available, their argument must 10 The Parents’ counsel stated at oral argument before this court that the Plaintiffs have no claims based on facts occurring after the second mediation agreement except for their argument that the Defendants breached the second agreement, discussed infra. 7 fail. Even if Leffler did not herself call to suggest alternative tutoring, there was a tutor available for Amy. As all of the Parents’ claims in this lawsuit are related to Amy’s education, these claims are covered by the unambiguous language of the mediation agreements. Because the Defendants did not breach the mediation agreements, the Parents’ claims are barred by the fact that they were settled.