Mattingly v. City of Chicago

John Mattingly (plaintiff) sued the City of Chicago (the city) (defendant) for violations related to Mattingly’s arrest and 10-day incarceration. On November 23, 1994, the federal district court held a settlement conference in chambers. The court fully discussed the issues with each party. At the end of the conference, the parties agreed to settle the case for a payment of $32,500 to Mattingly from the city. Mattingly agreed to the settlement after discussion and advice from counsel, and he stated his agreement. The parties agreed that they were to file with the court an agreed judgment and stipulation by November 29, 1994. Counsel for the city discussed the nature of the city’s standard general-release documents, and counsel for Mattingly agreed to work out any changes to the standard documents that might be required. The city drafted and sent a stipulation to Mattingly, whose counsel returned the draft seeking changes. The parties continued to exchange drafts until February 23, 1995, when the parties met with the court to discuss the disputed terms and reached agreement. Following this meeting, the parties created a final draft of the stipulation, incorporating the agreed-to changes. However, Mattingly refused to sign the stipulation. On May 10, 1995, the court met with the parties, and counsel for both parties agreed that the final draft of the stipulation, as written, set forth the terms the parties had agreed to on November 23, 1994. Against the advice of counsel, Mattingly refused to sign the stipulation. Mattingly stated that he wanted to add other unrelated items to the case because he did not think he would be able to find another lawyer to take on a new case. On July 6, 1995, the city filed a motion to enforce the settlement agreement. Mattingly asserted that no agreement was made because the stipulation was written by the city and was unfair, unbalanced, and possibly illegal on its face.