Allied World Specialty Insurance Company v. Progressive Plumbing, Inc. et al

Filing 79

ORDER granting in part and denying in part 78 Motion for Reconsideration. The Court's Order of Dismissal with Prejudice (Doc. 75) and Stipulated Order (Doc. 77) are VACATED. Signed by Judge Roy B. Dalton, Jr. on 5/25/2016. (VMF)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
ORLANDO DIVISION
ALLIED WORLD SPECIALTY
INSURANCE COMPANY,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 6:15-cv-1397-Orl-37TBS

LAWSON INVESTMENT GROUP, INC.;
CENTRAL FLORIDA PLUMBING
SUPPLY, INC.; WILLIAM E. LAWSON;
and CHARLENE H. LAWSON,
Defendants.
ORDER
This cause is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Unopposed Motion for Reconsideration
of a Final Order and Motion to File Paper Under Seal (Doc. 78), filed May 23, 2016.
On March 11, 2016, the parties to this action notified the Court that they had agreed
to a settlement “in principle.” (Doc. 74 (“Notice of Settlement”).) The Notice of Settlement
stated that the parties’ agreement would “be memorialized in a formal settlement
agreement over the upcoming days.” (Id.) Consequently, the Court issued its standard
order dismissing the action with prejudice and permitting the parties to move the Court
within sixty days for entry of a stipulated form of final order or judgment or, upon good
cause shown, to reopen the cause for further proceedings. (Doc. 75.)
On May 10, 2016, the parties timely moved for entry of a stipulated final order:
(1) recognizing that the parties had entered into a formal settlement agreement
(“Agreement”) (“First Request”); (2) recognizing that Agreement sets out the continuing
rights and obligations between the parties (“Second Request”); (3) dismissing the case

with prejudice against William E. Lawson and Charlene H. Lawson (“Individual
Defendants”) (“Third Request”); (4) dismissing the case without prejudice against
Lawson Investment Group, Inc. and Central Florida Plumbing Supply, Inc. (“Corporate
Defendants”) (“Fourth Request”); and (5) reserving jurisdiction to enforce the terms of
the Agreement (“Fifth Request”). (Doc. 76.) The Court entered an Order granting the
First and Second Requests and denying the Third, Fourth, and Fifth Requests on the
grounds that: (1) it had already dismissed the case with prejudice as to all Defendants;
and (2) it is not the Undersigned’s practice to retain jurisdiction to enforce the terms of
private settlement agreements. (Doc. 77 (“Final Order”).) Plaintiff moves for
reconsideration of the Court’s Final Order. (Doc. 78 (“Motion”).) The Motion is
unopposed.
Reconsideration is appropriate under Rule 59(e) on the basis of: (1) an intervening
change in controlling law; (2) newly discovered evidence; or (3) clear error or manifest
injustice. See Sussman v. Salem, Saxon & Nielsen, P.A., 153 F.R.D. 689, 694
(M.D. Fla. 1994) (noting that while Rule 59(e) does not explicitly set forth grounds
justifying reconsideration, courts have generally granted such relief in those three
circumstances). “[T]he decision to grant such relief is committed to the sound discretion
of the district judge[.]” Region 8 Forest Serv. Timber Purchasers Council v. Alcock,
993 F.2d 800, 806 (11th Cir. 1993).
Plaintiff represents that reconsideration is warranted to correct clear error and
prevent manifest injustice. (Doc. 78, p. 3.) Importantly, Plaintiff contends that the parties
only agreed to dismissal with prejudice as to the Individual Defendants and therefore,
dismissal with prejudice as to the Corporate Defendants is involuntary, contravenes the

2

parties’ Agreement, and may affect the parties’ rights going forward. (Id. at 3–4.) In
support, Plaintiff moves for leave to file the Agreement under seal for the Court’s review
(“Seal Request”). (Id. at 2, 5.)
Upon consideration of the parties’ Agreement and the effect that dismissal with
prejudice may have on Plaintiff’s rights against the Corporate Defendants going forward,
the Court finds that reconsideration of its Final Order is warranted. The Court will,
therefore, amend its Final Order to dismiss the action without prejudice as to the
Corporate Defendants. As such, the Seal Request is Moot.1
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:
1.

Plaintiff’s Unopposed Motion for Reconsideration of a Final Order and
Motion to File Paper Under Seal (Doc. 78) is GRANTED IN PART and
DENIED IN PART.
a.

To the extent that Plaintiff seeks dismissal of the action without
prejudice as to Central Florida Plumbing Supply, Inc. and Lawson
Investment Group, Inc., the Motion is GRANTED.

b.
2.

In all other respects, the Motion is DENIED.

The Court’s Order of Dismissal with Prejudice (Doc. 75) and Stipulated
Order (Doc. 77) are VACATED.

3.

The parties’ Joint Motion for Entry of Stipulated Form of Final Order or
Judgment (Doc. 76) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.
a.

Upon stipulation of the parties, the Court enters this Order to reflect that:

1

The Seal Request would otherwise be denied as noncompliant with Local
Rule 1.09(a).

3

i.

The parties have entered into a formal settlement agreement,
which sets out the continuing rights and obligations between
the parties.

ii.

This action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE as to
Charlene H. Lawson and William E. Lawson.

iii.

This action is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE as to
Central Florida Plumbing Supply, Inc. and Lawson
Investment Group Inc.

b.
4.

In all other respects, the Motion is DENIED.

The Court DECLINES to retain jurisdiction to enforce the terms of the
parties’ settlement agreement. If any party fails to uphold its end of the
settlement agreement, a separate suit may be filed to enforce the
agreement.

5.

The Clerk is DIRECTED to terminate all pending motions and close the file.

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers in Orlando, Florida, on May 25, 2016.

Copies:
Counsel of Record

4