Crawford et al v. Allstate Texas Lloyd's
Filing
30
ORDER ADOPTING 28 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS. The Court orders that defendant Allstate Texas Lloyd's 24 Motion for Summary Judgment and to Enforce Settlement Agreement is granted, and the plaintiffs' claims are DISMISSED in their entirety, with prejudice. The Court will enter final judgment separately. Signed by Judge Ron Clark on 2/14/12. (ljw, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
LUFKIN DIVISION
DARWIN CRAWFORD and
CHARLOTTE CRAWFORD,
Plaintiffs,
v.
ALLSTATE TEXAS LLOYD’S,
Defendant.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
CIVIL ACTION NO. 9:10-CV-132
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
ON MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Pending before the Court is the defendant Allstate Texas Lloyd’s Motion for Summary
Judgment and Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement [doc. #24]. The Court referred this matter
to United States Magistrate Judge Keith F. Giblin for consideration of and recommended disposition
on case-dispositive pretrial motions.
On January 11, 2012, Judge Giblin issued his report and recommendation in which he
recommended that the Court grant the motion for summary judgment and enforce the settlement
agreement. He also recommended that the Court enter judgment in favor of Allstate.
The Court has received and considered the report of the United States Magistrate Judge,
along with the record and pleadings. The parties have not filed objections to the magistrate judge’s
report. The plaintiffs did not respond to the pending motion for summary judgment. The
Court’s independent de novo review of the record confirms that the magistrate judge’s analysis is
correct.
The plaintiffs failed to present any summary judgment evidence
controverting the finding that the settlement agreement at issue is, in fact, valid and enforceable.
Allstate established that a valid settlement agreement exists through summary judgment evidence
attached to its motion. Judge Giblin concluded that a valid settlement agreement existed. The
plaintiffs failed to object to this finding.
They failed to present any evidence rebutting the
presumption that a valid and enforceable settlement agreement exists, as established by Allstate’s
motion. Accordingly, there is no genuine dispute regarding Allstate’s counterclaim, which seeks to
enforce the settlement agreement. See FED . R. CIV . P. 56(a); Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477
U.S. 242, 248 (1986); Little v. Liquid Air Corp., 37 F. 3d 1069, 1075 (5th Cir. 1994) (citing Celotex
Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 325 (1986)).
After review, the Court accordingly finds that Judge Giblin’s findings and recommendations
should be accepted. The Court ORDERS that the Report and Recommendation on the Motion for
Summary Judgment [doc. #28] is ADOPTED. The Court further ORDERS that defendant Allstate
Texas Lloyd’s Motion for Summary Judgment and to Enforce Settlement Agreement [doc. #24] is
GRANTED, and the plaintiffs’ claims are DISMISSED in their entirety, with prejudice. The Court
will enter final judgment separately.
So ORDERED and SIGNED this 14 day of February, 2012.
___________________________________
Ron Clark, United States District Judge
2
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?