## Facts

- Khody Sanford (identified in the caption as “K.S.”) was a Detroit Public Schools (DPS) student at the Frederick Douglass Academy for Young Men in Detroit.
- Charles Pugh, a volunteer at the school and a public official, allegedly engaged in sexual misconduct toward Sanford.
- Sanford reported the harassment, but DPS and its officials allegedly failed to respond appropriately.
- Sanford sued DPS and school officials for, among other claims, sex discrimination/harassment under the Michigan Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act (ELCRA) and “gender harassment” under Title IX (Title IX asserted against DPS only).
- Sanford sued Pugh for state-law torts (including battery and intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED)) and also asserted ELCRA and other claims against Pugh.
- Before trial, the court dismissed the § 1983 claims.
- Trial began on the remaining claims. On the second day of trial, Sanford and the “DPS defendants” settled; the settlement was placed on the record and called for entry of a consent judgment for $350,000, payable within one year, resolving the ELCRA and Title IX claims against the DPS defendants.
- The case proceeded to verdict against Pugh. The jury found Pugh liable for IIED and awarded Sanford $250,000.
- After the verdict, Pugh argued that Sanford’s recovery on the $250,000 IIED verdict must be reduced by the $350,000 consent judgment to prevent a double recovery, and asked the court to enter a $0 judgment against him.

## Issues

1. Does Michigan’s one-recovery rule require reducing (or eliminating) Sanford’s $250,000 IIED verdict against Pugh because Sanford also obtained a $350,000 consent judgment against DPS and its officials?
2. In entering final judgments after a mid-trial settlement with one set of defendants and a jury verdict against another defendant, how should the court structure the judgments to prevent any double recovery while preserving the verdict?

## Decision

- The court ordered entry of the $350,000 consent judgment against the DPS defendants consistent with the settlement placed on the record.
- The court rejected Pugh’s request to convert the jury’s $250,000 IIED verdict into a $0 judgment merely because the DPS defendants agreed to a larger consent judgment.
- The court directed entry of a judgment reflecting the jury’s IIED verdict against Pugh, while applying Michigan’s one-recovery rule through the form and effect of the judgments so Sanford would not obtain more than one satisfaction for the same injury.

## Legal Principles

- Michigan’s one-recovery rule bars a plaintiff from obtaining more than one satisfaction for a single injury, even when different defendants are involved.
- A settlement (including a consent judgment) with one defendant can affect collection on a judgment against another defendant to the extent both payments compensate the same injury.
- Courts may enter separate judgments reflecting (1) a negotiated consent judgment and (2) a jury’s damages verdict, and then enforce the one-recovery rule through how satisfaction and credits are applied, rather than erasing the jury’s verdict at the outset.
- The form of the final judgments should both (a) respect the jury’s liability and damages determination against the tortfeasor and (b) prevent duplicate payment for the same harm.

## Conclusion

K.S. v. Detroit Public Schools addresses how to enter judgments after a student’s mid-trial settlement with DPS and its officials (memorialized as a $350,000 consent judgment) and a subsequent $250,000 IIED verdict against the individual accused of sexual misconduct, Charles Pugh. Applying Michigan’s one-recovery rule, the court refused Pugh’s request for a $0 judgment and instead ordered entry of the settlement judgment and a separate judgment on the jury verdict, structured so that Sanford could not obtain more than one satisfaction for the same injury.


K.S. v. Detroit Public Schools, 153 F. Supp. 3d 970 (2015)