Opinion
7:24-cv-49 (WLS)
12-06-2024
DANIEL CRUMPLER, Plaintiffs, v. WESTLAKE SERVICES HOLDING COMPANY, and PRINCIPAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendants.
ORDER
W. LOUIS SANDS, SR. JUDGE
On December 4, 2024, the Court held a hearing regarding Defendant Westlake Services Holding Company's (“Defendant Westlake”) Motion to Enforce Settlement (Doc. 18). This Order is to memorialize the instructions given at that hearing and to set the parameters and briefing schedule for supplemental briefing.
At the hearing, Defendant Principal Life Insurance Company (“Defendant Principal Life”) made an oral motion to dismiss itself as a party to the action. Plaintiff indicated that he consented to its dismissal to the action. As relayed from the bench, that Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED. Defendant Principal Life is DISMISSED-WITHOUT-PREJUDICE as a Party to the action. As a result, Defendant Principal Life's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (Doc. 34) is DENIED-AS-MOOT. The Court, however, expects that Defendant Principal Life cooperate with Defendant Westlake to produce any documentation or other matters that may become relevant at a later stage in the proceedings.
The Court also finds supplemental briefing necessary to resolve Defendant Westlake's Motion to Enforce Settlement. Such supplemental briefing shall be no longer than five (5) pages and shall be submitted, by both remaining Parties, no later than Friday, December 27, 2024. No further briefing is authorized unless authorized by further order or the court. Such briefing will address two possible scenarios:
(1) If the Court were to find that a settlement agreement were made, but that Defendant Westlake did not perform as-agreed-to and tender the full amount Plaintiff bargained for, what should the remedy be?
(2) If the Court finds that no settlement agreement was made, should the Court order Plaintiff to return the amount tendered by Defendant Westlake to Plaintiff in expectation of settlement?
SO ORDERED.