Contract – Parties must return to mediation to attempt to finalize settlement

Where the parties agreed to a monetary settlement amount and payment schedule during a court mediation conference, but a dispute thereafter arose over settlement terms, the parties were ordered back to settlement before a magistrate judge.

Background

On June 11, 2024, plaintiffs initiated this action, which arises out of defendants’ alleged misappropriation, alteration and unauthorized publication and use in advertising of images of plaintiffs to promote their club. On Oct. 28, 2025, plaintiffs filed a consent motion for referral to a magistrate judge for the limited purpose of conducting a settlement conference,

After receiving notice from the magistrate judge’s chambers that the parties had reached a preliminary agreement to resolve the case, and having otherwise received no further filings from the parties related to the matter, on March 4, 2026, the court ordered the clerk of court to administratively close the case and the parties to file a joint stipulation of dismissal by March 27, 2026, or a motion to reopen the case by April 3, 2026.

On April 2, 2026, defendants filed a motion to re-open, reporting that “the parties have not yet reached a formalized settlement agreement,” and describing a dispute between the parties about terms that has prevented them from executing any agreement. The same day, defendants filed a motion to enforce settlement. Instead of filing responsive briefs, on April 23, 2026, plaintiffs filed a notice of settlement, reporting that “they have reached a settlement in principle of all claims asserted in this action,” and requesting 30 days for the parties to submit a stipulation of dismissal.

Analysis

In the motion to enforce, defendants argue that the parties reached a complete settlement agreement with ascertainable terms and conditions on Nov. 12, 2025. However defendants’ motion to reopen provides a clear indication that there was no finalized agreement as to the terms of any potential settlement. The email thread attachment indicates that the parties agreed in principle to a monetary settlement amount and payment schedule; however, the court cannot find that a complete agreement was reached with ascertainable terms and conditions.

In the email thread, the parties expressly based the agreed payment schedule around the future creation of an executed “settlement document,” which did not exist at the time and, to the court’s knowledge, still does not exist. Thus, the court cannot ascertain when any such payments would be due where no settlement document has been executed. Moreover, the fact itself that the parties based their agreement around the later agreement to and execution of a formal settlement document indicates that the email thread is not itself a complete agreement but an agreement to agree and that additional terms were contemplated by the parties.

This conclusion is further supported by defendants’ representations in their motion to enforce that of the 18 paragraphs in the draft settlement agreement, which contain many terms not included in the email thread, only three had not previously been discussed or agreed upon. For all of these reasons, the court cannot conclude that a complete agreement was reached on Nov. 12, 2025, nor determine the terms and conditions of that agreement. Furthermore, in the motion to reopen, defendants, the proponents of the motion to enforce, concede that there is no complete agreement. Accordingly, the motion to enforce will be denied.

However, because the parties have reached an agreement in principle and appear to agree to preliminary terms related to a payment amount, the court will also deny the motion to re-open at this time. It appears to the court that the parties could benefit from the assistance of a neutral party because both parties maintain that there is a settlement in principle. To facilitate the execution of a formalized settlement agreement, the parties will be directed to contact the chambers of the assigned magistrate judge to schedule a settlement conference.

Defendants’ motion to enforce settlement and motion to re-open denied.

Geiger v. Breakers Billiard Café, Inc., Case No. 1:24-cv-1013, April 29, 2026. EDVA at Alexandria (Alston). VLW 026-3-196. 6 pp.

Full-Text Opinion

VLW 026-3-196
Virginia Lawyers Weekly