Baldwin & Shell Construction Company v. Russell Coker Inc et al

Filing 24

Order granting 21 plaintiff's motion to enforce the settlement agreement. This case is dismissed with prejudice. USSIC's request for costs is denied. Signed by Judge Kristine G. Baker on 07/29/2015. (rhm)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
WESTERN DIVISION
BALDWIN & SHELL
CONSTRUCTION COMPANY
v.

PLAINTIFF

Case No. 4:15-cv-00008 KGB

RUSSELL COKER, INC. AND
U.S. SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY

DEFENDANTS

AND
RUSSELL COKER, INC.

COUNTERCLAIMANT

v.
BALDWIN & SHELL
CONSTRUCTION COMPANY

COUNTERCLAIM DEFENDANT
ORDER

Before the Court is plaintiff and counter-defendant Baldwin & Shell Construction
Company’s (“B&S”) motion to enforce settlement agreement and for entry of an order of
dismissal with prejudice (Dkt. No. 21).

B&S states that counsel for defendant and

counterclaimant Russell Coker, Inc. (“RCI”), has stalled and refused to approve the filing of a
stipulation of dismissal, despite his client’s execution and delivery of the settlement agreement,
delaying distribution of the settlement funds. Defendant and counterclaimant U.S. Specialty
Insurance Company (“USSIC”) concurs with the relief requested by B&S and further requests
costs for the necessity of B&S’s motion (Dkt. No. 23).
RCI’s counsel responds that, because his client has not responded to or answered his
attempts to contact it, he can neither confirm nor dispute whether the signature of Tom Coker,
president of RCI, is valid and whether the writing conforms to any agreement or understanding
that may have been reached (Dkt. No. 22). In response, USSIC attached the affidavit of one of

its bond claims managers, Greg Ching (Dkt. No. 23, at 4). Mr. Ching avers that he sent a copy of
the settlement agreement to Mr. Coker, who executed and returned the agreement. Mr. Ching
also states that Mr. Coker told him that he would confirm with RCI’s counsel that he executed
the agreement, though it is unclear whether Mr. Coker has done so.
Based on the record, the Court grants plaintiff’s motion to enforce the settlement
agreement. This case is dismissed with prejudice. USSIC’s request for costs is denied.
SO ORDERED this 29th day of July, 2015.

________________________________
KRISTINE G. BAKER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2