Opinion
Case No. 2:06-CV-533.
August 25, 2010
OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the court on plaintiffs' Frank and Twila Lee (Lees) claim for breach of settlement agreement and petition for relief (doc. 126) and defendant Dublin Manor Corp. motion to strike, or in the alternative, motion to compel compliance with the settlement agreement (doc 132).
Pursuant to the parties' settlement agreement, defendants were to provide plaintiffs with a proposed resolution, prepared by an engineer, for repairs to the Lee's basement. If the defendant's proposal was not accepted by the plaintiffs, then plaintiffs were to obtain their own independent engineer to review the proposal and, if necessary, prepare his own repair proposal. If the Lees' engineer and Dublin Manor's engineer could not agree, then a third independent engineer would be consulted to help mediate an acceptable remedy.
At the time plaintiff filed their motion to enforce the settlement agreement, defendant had not yet provided them with a copy of the engineer's report. Defendant's have now done so and according to plaintiff's most recent status report, plaintiff's have rejected that proposal and have provided defendants with plaintiff's own engineer's repair proposal. It appears to the court that the parties are now acting in accordance with the settlement agreement and therefore the plaintiff's motion to enforce the agreement (doc. 126) is moot. Defendant's motion to strike/enforce is also moot. (doc. 132). The parties shall file updated status reports by September 30, 2010.
IT IS SO ORDERED.