Where factual issues are raised or a party has withdrawn consent, the only method available to enforce an agreement within the meaning of Rule 11 is summary judgment or judicial proceedings. In Baylor College of Med. v. Camberg, the non-injurious party, asserted its right to the application of the agreement at issue “by an amended memorandum or a counter-appeal to assert an infringement”. There is nothing in the registration to indicate that Baylor applied an appropriate procedure to enforce a settlement agreement pursuant to Rule 11, after the parties proposed different interpretations of the agreement. Baylor did not apply for a summary judgment on the interpretation of the agreement within the meaning of Rule 11. Allowing a controversial agreement to be applied under Rule 11, simply upon request and at the hearing, would deprive a party of the right to be confronted with appropriate pleadings, to make defences, to make discoveries and to submit contentious factual issues to a judge or jury. To put it simply, a judge cannot enforce a contentious agreement in a dispute unless it is written and signed by lawyers or recorded in the minutes. An unrepresented party may sign without a lawyer. A dishonest person might try to circumvent an oral agreement by mis-characterizing its terms. But it is interesting to note that simply sending an email containing a signature block is not necessarily sufficient for the signature requirement under Rule 11.
Rule 11 agreements sometimes become a source of controversy. How likely is it that a Texas court will impose a controversial agreement under Rule 11? When it comes to agreements that settle all or part of a case on the merits, the answer is clear enough: a court must summarily execute a settlement agreement as soon as it has rendered a judgment that eliminates the case, but a party seeking enforcement before the court has rendered a judgment must bring an action for infringement. “Rule 11 does not require formality. . . .