Metropolitan Group v. Meridian Industries, Inc.
Filing
64
Final JUDGMENT and Injunction. Signed by District Judge Max O. Cogburn, Jr on 7/3/2012. (blf)
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
CHARLOTTE DIVISION
3:09-cv-00440-MOC-DSC
METROPOLITAN GROUP, INC.,
Plaintiff,
v.
MERIDIAN INDUSTRIES, INC.,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
FINAL JUDGMENT AND INJUNCTION
THIS MATTER having come before the Court upon a bench trial held on June 18, 2012,
and the Court serving as both Judge and Jury for the issues set out below, ORDERS, JUDGES,
AND DECREES that:
1.
With regard to Plaintiff's breach of contract claim for the presence of asbestos,
JUDGMENT is entered in favor of Defendant and against Plaintiff as to Plaintiff's claim
for damages related to invoices from Still Services totaling $23,299.00, as Plaintiff failed
to present evidence in support of such damages or evidence that Still actually performed
the work at issue, and therefore Plaintiff failed to satisfy its burden of proving that such
damages were a foreseeable or contemplated result of Defendant's breach;
2.
With regard to Plaintiff's breach of contract claim for the presence of asbestos, and by
stipulation of the parties regarding the Plaintiff's damages, JUDGMENT is entered in
favor of Plaintiff and against Defendant as to Plaintiff's claim for damages related to
invoices from Enpuricon, Inc. and EHG totaling $74,296.25;
3.
With regard to Defendant's breach of contract counterclaim, and by stipulation of the
-1-
parties regarding Defendant's damages, JUDGMENT is entered in favor of Defendant
and against Plaintiff as to Defendant's claim for damages related to its prior replacement
of groundwater wells totaling $32,059.00;
4.
With regard to Defendant's breach of contract counterclaim, an INJUNCTION is entered
against both parties requiring that:
a.
Until and unless a "No Further Action Letter" is issued by NCDENR or
Defendant's monitoring obligations are otherwise satisfied consistent with the
Purchase Agreement signed by the parties, Defendant is to replace the
groundwater wells on the property, and Plaintiff is to reimburse Defendant for the
cost of replacement within 30 days of receiving notice from Defendant, or
otherwise contest the reasonableness of the cost of replacement with the Court;
b.
Until and unless a "No Further Action Letter" is issued by NCDENR or
Defendant's monitoring obligations are otherwise satisfied consistent with the
Purchase Agreement signed by the parties, Plaintiff is not to unreasonably
interfere with or deny Defendant access to the groundwater wells, and Defendant
is not to unreasonably interfere with Plaintiff's development of the property;
c.
Until and unless a "No Further Action Letter" is issued by NCDENR or
Defendant's monitoring obligations are otherwise satisfied consistent with the
Purchase Agreement signed by the parties, Plaintiff is to give Defendant notice of
any plans to develop the property, and Defendant is to respond within 30 days of
receiving such notice as to the feasibility of moving the wells on the property so
that the wells do not unreasonably interfere with the Plaintiff's development of the
property; and
-2-
d.
Until and unless a "No Further Action Letter" is issued by NCDENR or
Defendant's monitoring obligations are otherwise satisfied consistent with the
Purchase Agreement signed by the parties, the parties agree that this Court retains
jurisdiction to hear any dispute between the parties regarding the groundwater
wells, including but not limited to, the location of the wells, the cost of their
replacement, and whether the wells unreasonably interfere with the Plaintiff's
development of the property.
5.
By stipulation of the parties, Plaintiff does not waive its right to a jury trial as to those
issues considered and dismissed at summary judgment, provided that Plaintiff
successfully appeals the Court's summary judgment order and is granted a new trial on
such issues. Further, by stipulation of the parties, the Defendant shall not attack or
challenge any evidence relating to the costs or expenses which may have been incurred
on behalf of the Plaintiff with GeoScience Group, Inc. on the grounds that such costs and
expenses related in any way to the removal of asbestos from the property.
Signed: July 3, 2012
-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?