-KFG Crawford et al v. Allstate Texas Lloyd's, No. 9:2010cv00132 - Document 30 (E.D. Tex. 2012)

Court Description: 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, )

Download PDF
-KFG Crawford et al v. Allstate Texas Lloyd's Doc. 30 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. Dockets.Justia.com 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

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.