United States District Court, D. New Jersey
PATRIA P. GARDE-HILL, Plaintiff,
CADBURY AT CHERRY HILL, INC., BRIAN KLOCKE, TAMMI MILOSZAR, and MEGAN NESSELL, Defendants.
WILLIAM B. HILDEBRAND LAW OFFICES OF WILLIAM B. HILDEBRAND,
LLC On behalf of Plaintiff
L. CHODOFF RENEE NUNLEY SMITH BALLARD SPAHR LLP On behalf of
L. HILLMAN, U.S.D.J.
Cadbury at Cherry Hill, Inc. asks this Court to enforce a
Settlement Agreement with Plaintiff Patria Garde-Hill in this
employment discrimination matter. For the reasons that
follow, the Court will grant Defendant's motion.
not directly relevant to deciding the present motion, the
Court will briefly set for the facts and procedural history
of the underlying case. Plaintiff alleged that while working
for Cadbury, a continuing care retirement community, she was
discriminated against because of her age and terminated on
October 17, 2014 in violation of the Age Discrimination in
Employment Act, 29 U.S.C. § 621, et seq.
filed her Complaint pro se on December 28, 2015.Throughout 2016
and 2017, the parties engaged in settlement negotiations,
including settlement conferences before the Magistrate Judge
assigned to this matter. Following an August 24, 2017
Settlement Conference, that same judge ordered Defendant to
file a motion to enforce settlement. Defendant filed its
motion on October 13, 2017.
treat a motion to enforce settlement under the same standard
as a motion for summary judgment because the central issue is
whether there is any disputed issue of material fact as to
the validity of the settlement agreement.” Coleman
Enters. Co. v. Scottsdale Ins. Co., No. 14-7533, 2017
U.S. Dist. LEXIS 50078, at *9 (D.N.J. Mar. 31, 2017) (citing
Washington v. Klem, 388 Fed.Appx. 84, 85 (3d Cir.
judgment is appropriate where the Court is satisfied that
“'the pleadings, depositions, answers to
interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the
affidavits if any, ' . . . demonstrate the absence of a
genuine issue of material fact” and that the moving
party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23
(1986) (citing Fed.R.Civ.P. 56).
issue is “genuine” if it is supported by evidence
such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict in the
nonmoving party's favor. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby,
Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). A fact is
“material” if, under the governing substantive
law, a dispute about the fact might affect the outcome of the
suit. Id. “In considering a motion for summary
judgment, a district court may not make credibility
determinations or engage in any weighing of the evidence;
instead, the non-moving party's evidence ‘is to be
believed and all justifiable inferences are to be drawn in
his favor.'” Marino v. Indus. Crating Co.,
358 F.3d 241, 247 (3d Cir. 2004) (citing Anderson,
477 U.S. at 255).
the moving party bears the burden of demonstrating the
absence of a genuine issue of material fact.
Celotex, 477 U.S. at 323 (“[A] party seeking
summary judgment always bears the initial responsibility of
informing the district court of the basis for its motion, and
identifying those portions of ‘the pleadings,
depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on
file, together with the affidavits, if any, ' which it
believes demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of
material fact.”); see Singletary v. Pa. Dep't
of Corr., 266 F.3d 186, 192 n.2 (3d Cir. 2001)
(“Although the initial burden is on the summary
judgment movant to show the absence of a genuine issue of
material fact, ‘the burden on the moving party may be
discharged by “showing” - that is, pointing out
to the district court - that there is an absence of evidence
to support the nonmoving party's case' when the
nonmoving party bears the ultimate burden of proof.”
(citing Celotex, 477 U.S. at 325)).
the moving party has met this burden, the nonmoving party
must identify, by affidavits or otherwise, specific facts
showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.
Celotex, 477 U.S. at 324. A “party opposing
summary judgment ‘may not rest upon the mere
allegations or denials of the . . . pleading[s].'”
Saldana v. Kmart Corp., 260 F.3d 228, 232 (3d Cir.
2001). For “the non-moving party to prevail, [that
party] must ‘make a showing sufficient to establish the
existence of [every] element essential to that party's
case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof
at trial.'” Cooper v. Sniezek, 418
Fed.Appx. 56, 58 (3d Cir. 2011) (citing Celotex, 477
U.S. at 322). Thus, to withstand a properly supported motion
for summary judgment, the nonmoving party must identify
specific facts and affirmative evidence that contradict those
offered by the moving party. Anderson, 477 U.S. at
party seeking to enforce the settlement agreement has the
burden of proving the existence of the agreement under
contract law.” United States ...