Valdivia et al v. Old Dominion Freight Line, Inc. et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
ISMAEL VALDIVIA, et al., 	: Civil No. 1:23-CV-1157
:
Plaintiffs, 	:
:
v. 	: (Chief Magistrate Judge Bloom)
:
OLD DOMINION 	:
FREIGHT LINE, INC., et al., 	:
:
Defendants. 	:
__________________________________________________________________
OLD DOMINION 	: Civil No. 1:23-CV-1173
FREIGHT LINE, INC., 	:
:
Plaintiff, 	:
:
v. 	: (Chief Magistrate Judge Bloom)
:
IVS EXPRESS, INC., et al., 	:
:
Defendants. 	:
MEMORANDUM OPINION
I. 	Introduction
This is a consolidated action arising out of a trucking accident that
occurred in July of 2021.1 Pending before the court is a motion to enforce
1 Doc. 1. 	This matter was consolidated with another case involving the
same trucking accident and parties to the plaintiff’s lawsuit.
	See Doc.
29.
Case 1:23-cv-01157-DFB Document 65 Filed 02/24/26 Page 1 of 15

2
settlement filed by Defendants Old Dominion Freight Line, LLC (“Old
Dominion”), and Ruddock.2 The undersigned held an evidentiary hearing
on this motion on February 10, 2026. 	After consideration, we will grant
the defendants’ motion to enforce the settlement.
II. 	Background
As we have noted, this matter arises out of a trucking accident that
occurred in July of 2021. According to Valdivia, the tractor trailer he was
driving blew a tire as he was heading westbound on the Pennsylvania
Turnpike, causing him to pull to the shoulder.3 	While he was on the
shoulder, he alleges that Ruddock, who was driving a tractor trailer for
Old Dominion, crashed into Valdivia’s tractor trailer, which resulted in
physical injuries to Valdivia.4 In his complaint, Valdivia asserted claims
of negligence and vicarious liability against the defendant companies and
Ruddock. 5 	According to Old Dominion, Valdivia’s tractor trailer stopped
2 Doc. 48. 	This motion is joined by the remaining defendants, IVS
Express, Inc., Markovic Transportation, Inc., and Markovic Freight, Inc.
See Doc. 53.
3
Id. ¶¶ 10-11.
4
Id. ¶¶ 13-17.
5
See Doc. 1 ¶¶ 25-37.
Case 1:23-cv-01157-DFB Document 65 Filed 02/24/26 Page 2 of 15

3
abruptly and remained partially in the roadway, blocking traffic, which
Old Dominion asserts was the cause of the collision.6
Valdivia’s 	former 	counsel, 	Richard 	Godshall, 	testified 	at 	the
evidentiary hearing in this matter and detailed his involvement in the
case. 7 Godshall testified that he received a call from an individual named
Jose Hernandez about taking on Valdivia’s case roughly 60 days before
the statute of limitations was set to expire.8 	From the call, Godshall
realized that Hernandez was not an attorney, but after speaking with
Hernandez 	and 	Valdivia, 	decided 	to 	represent 	Valdivia.9 	Godshall
explained that there appeared to be issues with liability from the start,
evidenced by a police report of the incident finding Valdivia at fault and
which resulted in criminal charges being filed against Valdivia. 10 	There
6
See Doc. 1, 1:23-CV-1173.
7 The undersigned confirmed with Valdivia that he was waiving his
attorney-client 	privilege 	as 	to 	these 	matters 	and 	the 	discussions
regarding the settlement in order for the court to gather the information
necessary 	to 	make 	an 	informed 	decision 	on 	the 	motion 	to 	enforce
settlement.
	See Hearing Transcript (“H.T.”) at 3-4, 6-7.
8 H.T. at 7-8.
9
Id.
10
Id. These charges remain pending.
	See Commonwealth v. Valdivia,
No. MJ-09304-CR-0000513-2021. 	Counsel further explained that the
police 	report 	from 	the 	accident 	concluded 	Valdivia 	was 	under 	the
influence of drugs at the time of the crash. He further testified that there
Case 1:23-cv-01157-DFB Document 65 Filed 02/24/26 Page 3 of 15

4
was also a discussion between Godshall and Valdivia about the nature of
the criminal charges, which Godshall explained impacted the value of the
case 	and 	his 	decision 	regarding 	whether 	to 	assert 	a 	wage 	claim. 11
Ultimately, Godshall decided to take the case but explained to Valdivia
that he likely would not get the amount of money he was initially seeking
given the liability hurdles with the case.12
According to Godshall, he and Valdivia discussed the possibility of
settling the case beginning in April of 2025. 13 	In May, Godshall received
an offer from the defense that he believed was a “nonstarter” because it
was so low, and as such, did not convey the offer to Valdivia. 14 	However,
Godshall explained that in August, after several conversations with
Valdivia, Valdivia gave him authority to settle the case for an amount
that would result in roughly $175,000 to $200,000 in Valdivia’s pocket. 15
Godshall testified that he had two telephone conversations with Valdivia
was some indication that Valdivia attempted to get rid of drugs in his
possession at the hospital following the crash. H.T. at 8-9.
11 H.T. at 10-11. Godshall testified that he believed bringing a wage claim
could open the door to the evidence of the drug charges coming in, which
he believed to be problematic.
12
Id. at 11-13.
13
Id. at 13.
14
Id.
15
Id. at 14-15.
Case 1:23-cv-01157-DFB Document 65 Filed 02/24/26 Page 4 of 15

5
on August 28, 2025—the first at 1:30 p.m. lasting for 28 minutes and 35
seconds, and the second at 4:20 p.m. lasting nine minutes and 17
seconds. 16 	He explained that, in his view, no one was really happy with
the amount but that, given the hurdles with the case, these numbers
were the most realistic outcome for Valdivia to receive a substantial sum
of money. 17 	He further testified that he had his firm look into setting up
an annuity for Valdivia to try and help him stretch the funds over a
period of time, but that it was ultimately not an option.18
Following the second phone call, Godshall sent an email to Valdivia
at 4:40 p.m., which memorialized their phone calls and Valdivia’s consent
to settle the case. 19 	Godshall also made an entry in the law firm’s case
management system on August 28, 2025, at 4:44 p.m., which states:
---Attorney Update Note---Numerous calls with client this
month to discuss case value and authority. 175-200k net
authority to settle, which means we need 400k or more. It is
the right number, but the Defendant may balk. If so, we will
schedule deps and move forward with damages workup.20
16
Id. at 17-18; Doc. 56, Ex. A, at 9.
17 H.T. at 15-16.
18
Id. at 14-15.
19
Id. at 18-19; Doc. 56, Ex. B, at 11.
20 Doc. 64 at 3, Godshall Ex. 2; H.T. at 19-20.
Case 1:23-cv-01157-DFB Document 65 Filed 02/24/26 Page 5 of 15

6
A second entry into the case management system on August 29, 2025, at
10:18 a.m. states that Godshall “[s]poke w/ DC. 450k resolves the case.
She is getting back to me in the next few days, otherwise, we need to
proceed with depositions.” 21
Godshall testified that he worked with defense counsel over the
next 	week 	to 	come 	to 	an 	agreement 	on 	the 	settlement 	amount. 22
Ultimately, they reached an agreement on September 5, 2025, to settle
the matter for $450,000, which after accounting for the law firm’s fees,
expenses, and any outstanding liens, netted Valdivia $209,266.30 in his
pocket. 23 Godshall memorialized the settlement in his case management
system on that same day at 3:29 p.m., noting that it was a “[g]ood
settlement. Client on meth at the time of the crash, and happenings of
the crash very well disputed.”24 	Godshall testified that he attempted to
call Valdivia after the settlement but was unable to reach him, and they
did not connect until the following Monday, September 8. 25
21 Doc. 64 at 4, Godshall Ex. 3.
22 H.T. at 16-17.
23
Id.; Doc. 54-3 at 10.
24 Doc. 64 at 5, Godshall Ex. 4.
25 H.T. at 21-22.
Case 1:23-cv-01157-DFB Document 65 Filed 02/24/26 Page 6 of 15

7
Valdivia also testified at the evidentiary hearing, asserting that he
never gave Godshall authority to settle the case.26 	He stated that the
first time he and Godshall ever talked about a settlement was on August
28, 2025.27 	He further claimed that he never gave Godshall authority to
settle the case during the August 28 phone calls.28 	He testified that he
immediately disagreed with the contents of Godshall’s August 28 email
and characterized the email as Godshall “granting himself” the authority
to settle.29 	However, despite immediately disagreeing with the contents
of the email and the authority to settle the case, Valdivia never voiced
his objections to Godshall, either by telephone or in writing. 30 Rather, he
conceded during the hearing that he forwarded Godshall’s email to Jose
Hernandez and to Elizabeth Ponce, his caretaker, to get their opinions. 31
Three days later, on August 31, Valdivia sent an email to Jose
Hernandez, 	purportedly meant for Godshall, objecting to Godshall’s
26
Id. at 42.
27
Id. at 43.
28
Id.
29
Id. at 49.
30
Id. at 49-50.
31
Id.; s
ee Doc. 54-3 at 1. Valdivia’s Gmail log indicates that he forwarded
Godshall’s email to Ponce and Hernandez on August 29, 2025, at 4:06
a.m. and 4:09 a.m., respectively.
	See also Doc. 56, Ex. C., at 13-14.
Case 1:23-cv-01157-DFB Document 65 Filed 02/24/26 Page 7 of 15

8
August 28 email and disclaiming any consent to settle the case.32 	In his
email, Valdivia accused Godshall of mishandling his case and indicated
he believed his case to be worth millions of dollars. 33 	Godshall testified
he never received this email. 34 	Further, one of Godshall’s law partners,
Louis Ricciardi, sent a letter to Valdivia that stated “[the firm] had our
IT person check our computers and there is no record of you emailing
Rich at any time before September 8, 2025.”35
Ultimately, Godshall and Valdivia connected on a roughly 30-
minute telephone call on Monday, September 8, at which time Godshall
informed Valdivia of the settlement.36 	Valdivia immediately objected to
the settlement at that time and forwarded Godshall the email he sent to
Hernandez on August 31. 37 	According to Valdivia’s hearing testimony,
32 H.T. at 43-49. While Valdivia was adamant that he sent this email to
Godshall, he could not provide any objective evidence that he sent the
email to Godshall, or that Godshall received the email, prior to the
September 5 settlement. The objective evidence indicates that this email
was sent only to Jose Hernandez on August 31 and later forwarded to
Godshall on September 8, after the settlement had already taken place.
Id.
33 H.T. at 21; Doc. 56, Ex. C., at 13.
34 H.T. at 41.
35 Doc. 64 at 11, Godshall Ex. 7.
36 Doc. 56, Ex. A., at 9.
37 H.T. at 22, 29-30.
Case 1:23-cv-01157-DFB Document 65 Filed 02/24/26 Page 8 of 15

9
he never authorized Godshall to settle for the amount agreed upon, nor
would he have agreed to anything without seeing all of the paperwork
first.38 	Godshall testified that in his career of practicing law, he never
once 	had 	a 	settlement 	release 	document 	signed 	prior 	to 	a 	client
authorizing a settlement amount. 39 	Rather, in response to questioning
by Valdivia, Godshall explained that typically when the parties agree to
an amount, it takes about 10 to 14 days to finalize a release and another
10 to 14 days to execute the documents.40 	He stated that he is typically
able to get a client their portion of the settlement funds within 45 to 60
days of the settlement being reached.41
Godshall testified that he told Valdivia he never received the email,
but 	that 	he 	could 	present 	it 	to 	the 	court 	and 	argue 	against 	the
settlement. 42 	But because of the accusations Valdivia made against
Godshall, 	Godshall 	testified 	that 	he 	had 	Ricciardi 	take 	over 	all
38
Id. at 37-38, 42, 51.
39
Id. at 35.
40
Id. at 36.
41
Id. 	We are constrained to note, primarily for the benefit of the
pro se
plaintiff, 	that 	this 	timeline 	is 	consistent 	with 	the 	undersigned’s
experience in conducting settlement conferences in federal civil cases.
42 H.T. at 22.
Case 1:23-cv-01157-DFB Document 65 Filed 02/24/26 Page 9 of 15

10
communications with Valdivia. 43 	After some back and forth, Valdivia
still refused to sign the settlement agreement.44 	Ricciardi informed
Valdivia that the defendants would likely file a motion to enforce the
agreement, and that the firm could assert mistake,
i.e., Valdivia sending
the 	email 	to 	the 	wrong 	person, 	to 	argue 	against 	enforcing 	the
settlement. 45 Instead of taking that course of action, Valdivia questioned
Ricciardi’s 	involvement 	and 	continued 	to 	insist 	that 	he 	never 	gave
Godshall authority to settle. 46 	Ultimately, the law firm withdrew as
counsel while noting for Valdivia that they would request that the court
give Valdivia time to find new counsel and oppose the motion to enforce
settlement. 47
The motion to enforce settlement was filed on October 21, 2025, by
Old 	Dominion 	and 	Ruddock, 	and 	later 	joined 	by 	the 	remaining
defendants. 48 Valdivia filed a brief in opposition to the motion on October
43
Id. at 22, 34.
44
Id. at 51-52; Doc. 64-1 at 44.
45 Doc. 64 at 6-8, Godshall Ex. 5.
46
Id. at 9-20, Godshall Exs. 6-8.
47
Id. at 14-21, Godshall Exs. 8-9.
See also Doc. 52. 	Counsel filed a brief
in opposition to the motion to enforce on Valdivia’s behalf to preserve his
right to contest the settlement while also withdrawing as counsel due to
the breakdown of the attorney-client relationship.
48 Docs. 48, 53.
Case 1:23-cv-01157-DFB Document 65 Filed 02/24/26 Page 10 of 15

11
30, 2025.49 	The motion is fully briefed and ripe for resolution. 	After
careful consideration, we will grant the motion.
III. 	Discussion
Motions to enforce settlement agreements are to be considered
“under the same standard as a motion for summary judgment: the non-
movant’s assertions must be treated as true; the non-movant must be
given the benefit of the doubt when their assertions conflict with the
movant’s assertions; and the movant must be entitled to enforcement as
a matter of law.” 50 	As with motions for summary judgment, “the non-
movant must provide evidentiary support for any assertions on which it
wishes to rely in opposing a motion to enforce settlement.”51
Where 	a 	client 	challenges 	counsel’s 	authority 	to 	enter 	into 	a
settlement agreement, the analysis of counsel’s authority is governed by
state law. 52 	Counsel must have “express actual authority” to settle a
49 	Doc. 52.
50
Dugan v. O’Hara, 125 F. Supp. 3d 527, 535 (E.D. Pa. 2015) (internal
citation and quotation marks omitted).
51
Id.
52
See Williams v. Havens, No. 4:21-CV-15, 2023 WL 8374737, at *1 n.6
(M.D. Pa. Dec. 4, 2023) (“Pennsylvania substantive law applies to this
analysis 	because 	‘the 	settlement 	of 	a 	lawsuit 	and 	the 	relationship
between an attorney and his client are areas traditionally governed by
state law.’”) (internal citations omitted).
Case 1:23-cv-01157-DFB Document 65 Filed 02/24/26 Page 11 of 15

12
client’s case.53 Such authority “must be the result of explicit instructions
regarding settlement.” 54 	If the attorney’s authority to settle a case is in
question, and authorization “hinges upon a factual issue and credibility
determinations[,]” the court should hold a hearing. 55 	“[A] Settlement
Agreement is still binding, even if it is clear that a party had a change of
heart in between the time he agreed to the terms of the settlement and
when those terms were reduced to writing.” 56
As we have explained, Valdivia and Godshall both testified at the
evidentiary hearing regarding their recollections of what led up to the
settlement agreement. After consideration, we find Godshall’s testimony
credible and conclude that the objective evidence demonstrates that
Godshall had express authority to enter into the settlement agreement
on Valdivia’s behalf.
Valdivia contends that he never gave Godshall authority to settle
his case, and he testified to the same. 	But the objective evidence says
53
Tiernan v. Devoe, 923 F.2d 1024, 1035 (3d Cir. 1991).
54
Id. at 1033.
55
Garabedian v. Allstates Engineering Co., Div. of Allstates Design &
Development Co., Inc., 811 F.2d 802, 803 (3d Cir. 1987).
56
McCune v. First Judicial Dist. of PA Probation Dep’t, 99 F. Supp. 2d
565, 566 (E.D. Pa. 2000).
Case 1:23-cv-01157-DFB Document 65 Filed 02/24/26 Page 12 of 15

13
otherwise. The call logs support Godshall’s testimony that he spoke with
Valdivia twice on August 28, 2025. 	Godshall’s follow-up email, which
memorializes the conversation between Valdivia and Godshall, along
with Godshall’s contemporaneous case management notes and Godshall’s
testimony all indicate that on August 28, 2025, Valdivia gave Godshall
authority to settle for an amount that resulted in Valdivia receiving
$175,000 to $200,000. Conversely, Valdivia’s claim that no authority was
provided is belied by the delay in objecting to Godshall’s email that
memorialized their conversation.
Having been granted express authority to settle the case, there is
no evidence that this authority was revoked. 	Instead of immediately
objecting to Godshall’s email on August 28 and informing him that he did
not wish to settle, Valdivia testified that he forwarded the email to Ponce
and Hernandez because he wanted to get their opinions. 	Further,
although he claims to have sent Godshall an email on August 31 objecting
to the August 28 email, Valdivia presented no objective evidence to
support this assertion. Rather, the objective evidence demonstrates that
Valdivia sent an email to Hernandez, not Godshall, on August 31.
Case 1:23-cv-01157-DFB Document 65 Filed 02/24/26 Page 13 of 15

14
This evidence is supported by Godshall’s testimony. 	Godshall
testified that on September 8, 2025, after he spoke with Valdivia and
learned Valdivia did not want to settle, he informed Valdivia he never
received an email from him. 	But he offered to argue mistake to negate
the settlement—
i.e., that Valdivia mistakenly sent his objection email to
Hernandez, but that the email evinces Valdivia’s lack of consent to settle
the case. 	This testimony is further supported by Ricciardi’s subsequent
emails to Valdivia, which again offered to make the argument to the court
that Valdivia’s mistake in sending the email to Hernandez should negate
the settlement.57 	Rather than discuss this option with the law firm,
Valdivia terminated them as his counsel and asked for his case file,
insisting that he never gave authority to settle his case and accusing the
firm of mishandling his case.58
Ultimately, given the objective evidence and testimony received at
the hearing, we conclude that credible evidence establishes that Godshall
was given express authority to settle Valdivia’s case, and that Valdivia
did not timely revoke his consent prior to the settlement being reached.
57 Hearing Ex., Godshall 5-8.
58
Id.
Case 1:23-cv-01157-DFB Document 65 Filed 02/24/26 Page 14 of 15

15
As such, the settlement agreement is binding on the parties, and the
motion to enforce the settlement will be granted.
IV. 	Conclusion
Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, the defendants’ motion to
enforce the settlement will be GRANTED.
An appropriate order follows.
Dated: February 24, 2026
s/ Daryl F. Bloom
Daryl F. Bloom
Chief United States Magistrate Judge
Case 1:23-cv-01157-DFB Document 65 Filed 02/24/26 Page 15 of 15