I don’t think this settlement effort is going anywhere


A colleague noted the following excerpt from a First Circuit decision issued yesterday, CQ Int’l Co., Inc. v. Rochem Int’l, Inc. [http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=10-1838P.01A]:

"the district court attempted to foster settlement discussions by ordering CQ to make a written settlement offer by October 16, 2009. Although CQ complied, it demanded $675,000, the full amount of the damages claimed in its amended initial disclosures. Rochem responded by rejecting this offer and making a counter-offer demanding that CQ pay Rochem $444,444.44 in order to settle the case and avoid Rochem's filing of a motion for sanctions and a suit for malicious prosecution. The district court noted, after being apprised of this matter by CQ, that the peculiar amount in Rochem's offer was due to the fact that the number four is considered an unlucky number in Chinese culture because it is homophonous with the Chinese word for death. The district court opined that, while Rochem's counter-offer was not a death threat, its attorneys had acted improperly. The court, however, declined to impose sanctions on Rochem's attorneys."

The opinion discusses the "extraordinary" deference given a trial judge's Rule 11 decision, and sustains its decision not to impose sanctions.