Header graphic for print
Chicago IP Litigation Tracking Northern District of Illinois IP Cases

Tag Archives: Settlement Conference

Oral Agreement is Enforceable as Part of a Final Judgment

Posted in Settlement

TRT Transportion, Inc., d/b/a Chicago Trolley Co. v. Chicago Trolley Rentals, Inc., No. 11 C 3693, Slip Op. (N.D. Ill. Jul. 26, 2012) (Tharp, J.).

 

Judge Tharp adopted Judge Cox’s report and recommendation enforcing the parties’ oral settlement agreement placed on the record at the conclusion of a settlement conference.  The record was clear that the parties agreed the oral terms were enforceable.  And the material terms defendant said were not included, had never even been discussed.  The Court, therefore, entered the terms of the settlement and a final judgment as part of its order.

Oral Settlement on the Record is Enforceable

Posted in Settlement

Transportion, Inc. d/b/a Chicago Trolley Co. v. Chicago Trolley Rentals, Inc., No. 11 C 3693, Slip Op. (N.D. Ill. Jan. 21, 2012) (Cox, Mag. J.).

Judge Cox recommended granting plaintiff’s motion to enforce the parties’ oral agreement and denied defendant’s motion for declaration of the absence of an agreement in this trademark case.  At the end of a Court-led settlement conference, the parties stated their settlement terms on the record.  Plaintiff then commented that settlement was subject to negotiating a written agreement.  In response, the Court explained that the “terms are enforceable” and each party agreed.  Based upon the parties’ exchange on the record, the Court recommended holding the oral agreement enforceable.

Party Must Speak Through Counsel

Posted in Pleading Requirements

Brown-Younger v. LULU, No. 12 C 1979, Slip Op. (N.D. Ill. May 15, 2012) (Shadur, Sen. J.). 

Judge Shadur denied pro se plaintiff’s various motions in this copyright case:

  • The motion seeking appointment of new pro bono was unnecessary.  Having previously held that plaintiff may proceed in forma pauperis, plaintiff’s counsel’s conflict will result in a new appointment.
  • Plaintiff’s substantive motions were denied.  Plaintiff could not have it both ways.  Having had counsel appointed, plaintiff must allow counsel to speak for her.
  • While the Court encourages settlement, the Court would not compel a settlement conference.