Universal Industrial Management Group LLC v. MIH Steel Products LLC

Filing 19

ORDER granting 14 Universal Industrial's Motion to Enforce the parties' settlement, & awarding a $500.00 attorney's fee for having to seek enforcment. Judgment will be entered. Signed by Judge D. P. Marshall Jr. on 7/1/2011. (jct)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS JONESBORO DIVISION UNIVERSAL INDUSTRIAL MANAGEMENT GROUP, LLC v. PLAINTIFF Case No. 3:10-cv-269-DPM MIHSTEEL PRODUCTS, LLC DEFENDANT/COUNTER CLAIMANT v. UNIVERSAL INDUSTRIAL MANAGEMENT GROUP, LLC COUNTER DEFENDANT ORDER Universal Industrial Management Group and MIH Steel Products entered into an undisputed settlement agreement, Document No. 14-1, that was to be consummated by the end of April. MIH has not performed. And Universal moves to enforce. MIH says that, as Universal knew, MIH had to dismantle and sell a barge to get the money to satisfy the settlement agreement, but" these efforts were thwarted by the recent flooding of the Mississippi River at Memphis, Tennessee." Document No. 16, at 3. MIH asks for an evidentiary hearing on whether dismantling the barge was a condition precedent to NIIH's performance. Because the settlement agreement is not ambiguous, the Court declines to hold an evidentiary hearing. No" substantial factual dispute concerning the existence or terms of the settlement agreement[]" appears of record. Gatz v. Southwest Bank ofOmaha, 836 F.2d 1089, 1095 (8th Cir. 1988). The parties do not dispute the settlement agreement's existence. Nor do the parties dispute the terms in their written agreement. MIH, however, seeks to add a term and Universal resists. The parties' agreement, which MIH drafted, does not contain any terms linking MIH's payment to the dismantling of the barge or otherwise conditioning MIH's payment on that event. The Court must "construe a contract according to its unambiguous language without enlarging or extending its term." Christmas v. Raley, 260 Ark. 150,153,539 S.W.2d 405, 407 (1976). That MIH needed to dismantle and sell the barge to raise the money to pay Universal does not create a condition precedent absent Universal agreeing to link payment and the barge's fate. "[A] promisor's financial inability to pay does not discharge the contractual duty and is therefore not -2­ a bar to a decree for specific performance." Christy v. Pilkinton, 224 Ark. 407, 407273 S.W.2d 533, 533 (1954). The Court grants Universal's motion to enforce the parties' settlement, Document No. 14, and awards Universal a $500.00 attorney's fee for having to seek enforcement. ARK. CODE ANN. § 16-22-308. Judgment will be entered. So Ordered. 1!!:1:-LetI ~, D.P. "Marshall Jr. # United States District Judge -3­

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?