Memorandum in Support of Motion to Enforce Settlement — Ricks v. LexisNexis Risk Solutions (E.D. Va.)

Summary

Plaintiff's Memorandum in Support of Motion to Enforce the Parties' Settlement Agreement, Ricks v. LexisNexis Risk Solutions, Inc., Civil Action No. 4:24-cv-00139, Document 33, filed July 2, 2025, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. Plaintiff states she filed a Notice of Settlement on March 26, 2025 and that the parties filed joint motions to extend the deadline for filing the dismissal. She argues that Lexis made an offer on February 26, 2025 to pay a sum certain in exchange for dismissal, that the offer was accepted by email, and that Lexis has not remitted the promised payment. The memorandum asks the Court to enter an Order summarily enforcing the settlement agreement. It cites Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins., 511 U.S. 375 (1994), and carries a /s/ signature for Susan M. Rotkis.

Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used

Cite this document

“Memorandum in Support of Motion to Enforce Settlement — Ricks v. LexisNexis Risk Solutions (E.D. Va.).” Original at archive.org. Archived at Pandemic Darlings, https://pandemicdarlings.com/source-documents/33-memorandum-in-support-re-30-motion-to-enforce-settlement-agr-a08308e1e6/, SHA-256 59b0891eb76c93f56f159d78fd2457337211cb6fed49cff3b27b214d2c680d89.

Full text

Case 4:24-cv-00139-EWH-RJK Document 33 Filed 07/02/25 Page 1 of 8 PageID# 300

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
NEWPORT NEWS DIVISION

ADRIANNA NICOLE RICKS,

Plaintiff,

v. Civil Action No. 4:24-cv-00139

LEXISNEXIS RISK SOLUTIONS, INC.,

Defendant.

PLAINTIFF’S MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO
ENFORCE THE PARTIES’ SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

Adrianna Ricks (“Plaintiff” or “Ms. Ricks”) has moved for an Order enforcing her

settlement agreement with Defendant LexisNexis Risk Solutions, Inc. (“Defendant” or “Lexis”).

The court has jurisdiction to enforce settlement agreements in cases arising before it and upon

agreement of the parties. See Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins., 511 U.S. 375 (1994).

I. RELEVANT BACKGROUND
Plaintiff filed her Notice of Settlement on March 26, 2025, indicating that the parties had

“resolved the claims between them in this matter” and would “voluntarily dismiss the action in

due course” requesting “thirty days in which to do so.” See Dkt. No. 19. On April 25, 2025, the

parties filed their first joint motion to extend the deadline for filing of the dismissal. See Dkt. No.

21. The Court granted the extension on April 28, 2025. See Dkt. No. 22. On May 13, 2025, the

parties filed their second joint motion to extend the deadline for filing the dismissal. See Dkt. No.

23. The Court granted the extension on May 14, 2025, See Dkt. No. 24. On May 30, 2025, the

1
Case 4:24-cv-00139-EWH-RJK Document 33 Filed 07/02/25 Page 2 of 8 PageID# 301

parties filed their third joint motion to extend the deadline for filing the dismissal. See Dkt. No.

25. The Court granted the extension on June 2, 2025, See Dkt. No. 26.

The underlying reason for the parties’ repeated requests for extension – identified in the

third joint motion for extension – arises from the importance of ensuring that Plaintiff’s consumer

information – maintained and published by Lexis – is accurate in its current iteration before

Plaintiff agrees to a general release of all claims arising out of Lexis’ consumer reporting.

Between February 21, 2025, and February 26, 2025, the parties negotiated in good faith to

arrive at a mutually agreeable settlement on terms certain: Plaintiff’s dismissal of the case in

exchange for Lexis’ payment of an agreed-upon amount of money. . Ex. A, at 50-63. On February

26, 2025, Lexis provided its draft of a proposed settlement agreement, which included new terms

in addition to the agreed upon monetary compensation in exchange for dismissal. Id., 48-49.

Plaintiff’s counsel was unable to review the proposed terms in their entirety the following day, and

so the parties agreed to jointly move the Court for an extension to all discovery deadlines while

the terms were discussed. Id., 46-48.

On March 6, 2025, Plaintiff’s counsel emailed Lexis’ counsel regarding a provision in the

proposed settlement agreement that requires Plaintiff to agree that Lexis’ current disclosure

(comprised of consumer information in its file) about Plaintiff is accurate –

– and noted that Lexis had not yet sent over Lexis’ current disclosure. Ex. A, at 42. Between

March 7, 2025, and March 20, 2025, Lexis refused to provide the disclosure statement based on

the erroneous assertion that Plaintiff was required to sign an additional consent form. Id., 33-41.1

1
As was communicated to Lexis via email from Plaintiff’s counsel, Lexis’ position on this issue
was absurd from the beginning. It was Lexis that unilaterally added a term of settlement that
required Plaintiff to agree that the disclosure was accurate. Then it was Lexis that refused to

2
Case 4:24-cv-00139-EWH-RJK Document 33 Filed 07/02/25 Page 3 of 8 PageID# 302

Rather than simply provide the disclosure – a necessity imposed by Lexis’ unilateral additions to

the settlement terms it alone drafted – Lexis unnecessarily moved the Court for an order requiring

that Lexis produce the disclosure, which the Court granted on March 20, 2025. See Dkt. No. 18.

On March 20, 2025, Lexis finally produced Plaintiff’s consumer disclosure via email. Ex.

A at 33. Due to the sheer volume of the information contained in the disclosure, and the attendant

time required to thoroughly review it, the parties agreed to the Court’s continuing jurisdiction

under Kokkonen v. Guardian Life and filed a notice of settlement with the Court on March 26,

2025. Id., 32-33; Dkt. No. 19.

On March 28, 2025, Plaintiff finalized her review of the disclosure and informed Lexis of

several inaccuracies still being reported. Ex. A at 30-31. Additionally, Plaintiff had received a

State Privacy Act Disclosure Report from Lexis in the mail, which she reviewed and in which she

identified several more inaccuracies, all of which were communicated to Lexis’ counsel. Id.

Between March 28, 2025, and April 11, 2025, Plaintiff’s counsel followed up multiple times

requesting an update on the status of Lexis’ disclosure corrections. Id., 27-29. Finally, on April 17,

2025, Lexis provided an updated consumer disclosure. Id., 27. However, Lexis did not provide an

update to the State Privacy Act Disclosure. Id., 26.

Between April 17, 2025, and the date of this Motion, Plaintiff’s counsel has repeatedly

requested an update to the State Privacy Act Disclosure. Ex. A, at 1-26. To date, Lexis has failed

to provide a copy of the State Privacy Act Disclosure,

might arise from information contained in its State

Privacy Act Disclosure. Id., 21-22.

II. LEGAL STANDARD

provide that disclosure unless Plaintiff signed additional consent forms based on an illogical
reading of 15 U.S.C. § 1681g. See Exhibit A, 37.
3
Case 4:24-cv-00139-EWH-RJK Document 33 Filed 07/02/25 Page 4 of 8 PageID# 303

The parties have specifically reserved enforcement of the settlement agreement as a matter

for the Court to retain. See Dkt. No. 19. Because enforcement of the settlement was specifically

reserved, and because the Court may exercise its jurisdiction in order to govern its own

proceedings, this matter is properly before the court by motion in the underlying action. See

Kokkonen, 511 U.S. 375. District courts have inherent authority, deriving from their equity power,

to enforce settlement agreements. See Millner v. Norfolk & W. Ry. Co., 643 F.2d 1005, 1009 (4th

Cir.1981). The exercise of this authority has the “practical effect” of entering a judgment by

consent. Id.; Hensley v. Alcon Labs., Inc., 277 F.3d 535, 540 (4th Cir. 2002).

Under Virginia law, a settlement agreement is a matter of contract “subject to the general

principles of contract interpretation.” See Power Servs., Inc. v. MCI Constructors, Inc., 3 F. App'x

190, 192 (4th Cir.2001) (quoting Byrum v. Bear Inv. Co., 936 F.2d 173, 175 (4th Cir.1991)). The

essential elements of a contract are an offer, acceptance, and consideration. See Snyder–Falkinham

v. Stockburger, 249 Va. 376, 381 (1995). “To prove a contract’s existence, all of the essential

elements must be proven.” Dean v. Morris, 287 Va. 531, 536 (2014).

A contract is formed when the offeree communicates acceptance to the offeror. See Levy

v. Beach Inv. Corp., 212 Va. 19, 20 (1971). “An offer, which is usually but not always a promise,

is a manifestation of a willingness to enter into a bargain.” Chang v. First Colonial Sav. Bank, 242

Va. 388, 392 (1991) (citing Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 24 (1981)). “The offer identifies

the bargained for exchange, and creates a power of acceptance in the offeree.” Id. (citations

omitted). “The most basic principle of contract law is that when one party makes an offer that is

clear, definite, and explicit, and leaves nothing open for negotiation, acceptance of that offer by

the other party will complete the contract.” Judicial Inquiry and Review Comm'n of Va. v. Elliott,

272 Va. 97, 119 (2006) (citing Chang, 242 Va. at 391). “In deciding whether a settlement

4
Case 4:24-cv-00139-EWH-RJK Document 33 Filed 07/02/25 Page 5 of 8 PageID# 304

agreement has been reached, the Court looks to the objectively manifested intentions of the

parties.” Moore v. Beaufort Cnty., N.C., 936 F.2d 159, 162 (4th Cir.1991) (citations omitted).

“Once a competent party makes a settlement and acts affirmatively to enter into such settlement,

her second thoughts at a later time upon the wisdom of the settlement do not constitute good cause

for setting it aside.” Snyder–Falkinham, 249 Va. at 385 (citation omitted).

III. ARGUMENT
Plaintiff has been incredibly patient with Lexis, waiting over two months for Lexis to

provide the document necessary for Plaintiff to agree to additional terms unilaterally imposed by

Lexis after a settlement agreement was reached. Plaintiff has even joined with Lexis in three

requests to extend the dismissal deadline to allow Lexis additional time to do so. However, enough

is enough. Plaintiff now simply wishes to enjoy the benefits of the settlement agreement on the

terms certain into which the parties originally entered: monetary compensation in exchange for

dismissal.

Here, Lexis made a clear, definite, and explicit offer to settle Plaintiff’s claim for a sum

certain payment via email to the undersigned on February 26, 2025. That offer was accepted and

memorialized in writing and transmitted via email. Following the written agreement to terms –

which is itself an enforceable agreement – Lexis provided a draft settlement agreement. In that

draft, Lexis unilaterally added a multitude of terms beyond what the parties had already agreed.

Despite this unilateral decision, Plaintiff was willing to accept the amendment to the

parties’ settlement agreement terms as long as the consumer information was, in fact, accurate.

However, in order to do so, Plaintiff obviously needed to actually review Lexis’ current disclosure

5
Case 4:24-cv-00139-EWH-RJK Document 33 Filed 07/02/25 Page 6 of 8 PageID# 305

about her, including the State Privacy Act Disclosure. For over two months Plaintiff has been

requesting Lexis’ State Privacy Act Disclosure corrections, to no avail. This has taken an

inordinately long time and Plaintiff, understandably, is unwilling to wait any longer in order to

facilitate Lexis’ proposed amendments to the settlement agreement. In an email exchange through

counsel, Plaintiff promised to dismiss her claims against Lexis in exchange for receipt of payment,

which promise was memorialized by Plaintiff’s filing of a notice indicating the impending

dismissal to the Court. Lexis has failed to perform its obligations under the Settlement agreement:

it has not remitted the promised payment to Plaintiff. This failure to comply with the Settlement

agreement has caused Plaintiff economic damage in the form of the settlement amount as well as

in additional attorneys’ fees and costs associated with enforcing the terms of the agreement.

Plaintiff seeks enforcement of the Settlement agreement, which represents an enforceable

contract under Virginia law. The Supreme Court of Virginia has clearly addressed breach of

contract:

The elements of a breach of contract action are (1) a legally enforceable obligation of a
defendant to a plaintiff; (2) the defendant’s violation or breach of that obligation; and injury
or damage to the plaintiff caused by the breach of obligation.” Filak v. George, 267 Va.
612, 619, 594 S.E.2d 610, 614 (2004).
Squire v. Va. Hous. Dev. Auth., 287 Va. 507, 517, 758 S.E.2d 55, 60 (2014). Like the plaintiff in

Squire, the Plaintiff alleges that a Virginia contract exists, that Lexis failed to fulfill its obligations

under the contract, and that he has been damaged as a result of Lexis’ breach. Id. Plaintiff

performed her obligations under the contract – filing a notice of dismissal – and now waits upon

Lexis to do so. The Fourth Circuit has explained:

Because exercise of the authority to enforce settlement agreements depends on the
parties’ agreement to a complete settlement, the court cannot enforce a settlement until
it concludes that a complete agreement has been reached and determines the terms and
conditions of that agreement. See Ozyagcilar v. Davis, 701 F.2d 306, 308 (4th
Cir.1983). “[I]t is improper for the district court, by its own motion or by agreement

6
Case 4:24-cv-00139-EWH-RJK Document 33 Filed 07/02/25 Page 7 of 8 PageID# 306

of the parties, to place itself in the role of ‘final arbiter’ of a settlement agreement.”
Id. Thus, if an agreement for complete settlement of the underlying litigation, or part
of it, has been reached and its terms and conditions can be determined, the court may
enforce the agreement summarily as long as the excuse for nonperformance of the
agreement is “comparatively insubstantial.” Millner, 643 F.2d at 1009 (quoting Autera
v. Robinson, 419 F.2d 1197, 1200 (D.C.Cir.1969)). “[H]aving second thoughts about
the results of a valid settlement agreement does not justify setting aside an otherwise
valid agreement,” Young v. FDIC, 103 F.3d 1180, 1195 (4th Cir.1997), and the fact
that the agreement is not in writing does not render it unenforceable, Alexander v.
Industries of the Blind, Inc., 901 F.2d 40, 41 (4th Cir.1990). Thus, to exercise its
inherent power to enforce a settlement agreement, a district court (1) must find that
the parties reached a complete agreement and (2) must be able to determine its terms
and conditions. Moore v. Beaufort County, 936 F.2d 159, 162 (4th Cir.1991);
Ozyagcilar, 701 F.2d at 308. If there is a factual dispute over the existence of an
agreement, over the authority of attorneys to enter into the agreement, or over the
agreement's terms, the district court may not enforce a settlement agreement
summarily. See Alexander, 901 F.2d at 41; Millner, 643 F.2d at 1010. Instead, when
such factual disputes arise, the court must “conduct a plenary evidentiary hearing in
order to resolve that dispute,” Millner, 643 F.2d at 1009, and make findings on the
issues in dispute, see Ozyagcilar, 701 F.2d at 308. If a district court concludes that no
settlement agreement was reached or that agreement was not reached on all the
material terms, then it must deny enforcement.
Hensley, 277 F.3d at 540-41 (emphasis in original).

In this case, a complete agreement was reached and reduced to writing in the form of an

email memorializing Plaintiff’s acceptance of Lexis’ offer to pay a monetary amount in exchange

for dismissal. The complete agreement is evidenced in email communications filed herewith, and

the performance by Plaintiff cannot be disputed. The Court should therefore exercise its inherent

equity authority and enter an Order summarily enforcing the terms of the settlement agreement,

requiring that Lexis pay the amount to Plaintiff that it agreed to in exchange for dismissal.

IV. CONCLUSION
For these reasons, Plaintiff respectfully moves the Court for an Order enforcing her

settlement agreement with Lexis.

7
Case 4:24-cv-00139-EWH-RJK Document 33 Filed 07/02/25 Page 8 of 8 PageID# 307

Respectfully submitted,

Adrianna Nicole Ricks

/s/
Susan M. Rotkis, VSB 40693
CONSUMER JUSTICE LAW FIRM PLC
2290 East Speedway Blvd.
Tucson, AZ 85719
T: (602) 807-1504
F: (480) 613-7733
E: srotkis@consumejustice.com
Attorney for Plaintiff
Adrianna Nicole Ricks

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on July 2, 2025 , 1 electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk

of the Court using the ECF system, which will send notice of such filing to all attorneys of record

in this matter. Since none of the attorneys of record are non-ECF participants, hard copies of the

foregoing have not been provided via personal delivery or by postal mail.

File and source

File: 33-memorandum-in-support-re-30-motion-to-enforce-settlement-agr.pdf
Size: 290,172 bytes
SHA-256: 59b0891eb76c93f56f159d78fd2457337211cb6fed49cff3b27b214d2c680d89
Our copy: 33-memorandum-in-support-re-30-motion-to-enforce-settlement-agr.pdf
Original: archive.org