MALONE et al v. WEISS, et al

Filing 104

ORDER THAT THE AMENDED MOTION BY WENDY AND HOWARD WEISS TO ENFORCE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT 94 IS GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT THE WEISSES' ORIGINAL MOTION 87 IS DENIED AS MOOT. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT THE TERMS OF THE SETTLEMENT AGREE MENT ARE INCORPORATED INTO THIS ORDER, SUCH THAT "A BREACH OF THE AGREEMENT WOULD BE A VIOLATION OF THE ORDER, AND ANCILLARY JURISDICTION TO ENFORCE THE AGREEMENT WOULD THEREFORE EXIST.". SIGNED BY MAGISTRATE JUDGE RICHARD A. LLORET ON 3/6/19. 3/6/19 ENTERED AND COPIES E-MAILED.(ti, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
JOHN MALONE, et al
Plaintiffs,
v.
HOWARD WEISS, et al
Defendants.

:
:
:
:
:
:
:

CIVIL ACTION

NO. 17-cv-01694-RAL

ORDER
For the reasons explained in the Memorandum Opinion filed contemporaneously
with this Order, it is on this 6th day of March, 2019
ORDERED
that the Amended Motion by Wendy and Howard Weiss to Enforce Settlement
Agreement (Doc. No. 94) is GRANTED. It is FURTHER ORDERED that the Weisses’
original motion (Doc. No. 87) is DENIED as moot.
It is FURTHER ORDERED that the terms of the settlement agreement are
incorporated into this Order, such that “a breach of the agreement would be a violation
of the order, and ancillary jurisdiction to enforce the agreement would therefore exist.”
Shaffer v. GTE North, Inc., 284 F.3d 500, 503 (3d Cir. 2002) (quoting Kokkonen v.
Guardian Life Insurance Co. of America, 511 U.S. 375, 381 (1994)).
Judgment will be entered by a separate document.
BY THE COURT:

s/Richard A. Lloret
RICHARD A. LLORET
U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE