Doran v. Fidelity Brokerage Services, LLC

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND
IAN DORAN,
Plaintiff,
v.
FIDELITY BROKERAGE SERVICES
LLC,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
C.A. No. 1:24-CV-00211-MSM-AEM
ORDER
Mary S. McElroy, United States District Judge.
Before the Court is the plaintiff, Ian Doran’s, objection to the Report and
Recommendation (“R&R”) issued by Magistrate Judge Amy E. Moses recommending
that the Court grant the defendant, Fidelity Brokerage Services LLC’s (“Fidelity”),
Motion to Enforce Settlement. (ECF No. 17.)
When 	a 	party 	timely 	objects 	to 	a 	magistrate 	judge’s 	report 	and
recommendation, the Court reviews the challenged rulings de novo. 	28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1)(C);
see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72. 	For the reasons below, having reviewed the
record and the relevant law, the Court ACCEPTS the R&R and ADOPTS in full its
reasoning.
The Court has conducted a de novo review of the portions of the R&R to which
the plaintiff objects. 	Having carefully considered the record, the Court agrees with
the Magistrate Judge that the parties entered into a binding and enforceable
settlement agreement memorialized in a signed term sheet containing clear and
Case 1:24-cv-00211-MSM-AEM Document 22 Filed 04/20/26 Page 1 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
unambiguous terms, and that no genuinely disputed issue of material fact precludes
summary enforcement.
See Fid. & Guar. Ins. Co. v. Star Equip. Corp., 541 F.3d 1, 5
(1st Cir. 2008). 	The plaintiff’s assertion that there was no mutual assent is
unavailing where the material terms of the agreement (including the agreed-upon
Form U5 language) were expressly set forth in the term sheet and assented to in
writing while the plaintiff was represented by counsel.
The Court further agrees that the plaintiff has failed to establish duress under
Rhode Island law, which requires a showing that “one by the unlawful act of another
is induced to perform some act under circumstances which deprive him of the exercise
of free will.”
	Miller v. Metro. Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 111 A.3d 332, 342 (R.I. 2015).
Even accepting the plaintiff’s allegations regarding pressure during the mediation as
true, such circumstances, without evidence of unlawful conduct or the absence of a
reasonable 	alternative, 	are 	insufficient 	as 	a 	matter 	of 	law 	to 	invalidate 	the
agreement.
Id. at 343.
Because the plaintiff has not raised a legally sufficient basis to disturb the
agreement or to require an evidentiary hearing, the Court ACCEPTS and ADOPTS
the R&R in full. (ECF No. 17.) Fidelity’s Motion to Enforce Settlement (ECF No. 13)
is therefore GRANTED.
The parties are ORDERED to comply with the terms of the settlement
agreement. This action is hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE, and the Clerk of
Court shall enter judgment accordingly.
Case 1:24-cv-00211-MSM-AEM Document 22 Filed 04/20/26 Page 2 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
IT IS SO ORDERED.
_________________________________
Mary S. McElroy
United States District Judge
April 20, 2026
Case 1:24-cv-00211-MSM-AEM Document 22 Filed 04/20/26 Page 3 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>