Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-00097/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-00097-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 130
Nature of Suit: Miller Act
Cause of Action: 40:270 Miller Act

---

1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

 10

 11

 12

 13

 14

 15

 16

 17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1 08CV0097 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RON CHAVEZ, dba SAN DIEGO

CONSTRUCTION WELDING,

Plaintiff,

v.

INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE WEST,

HAR CONSTRUCTION, INC.,

Defendants.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil No. 08-0097-WQH(LSP)

ORDER REGARDING LANGUAGE

TO BE PLACED IN THE 

SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

On April 9, 2008, the parties settled the above-entitled

action. On May 1, 2008, the parties consented to the jurisdiction

of the undersigned to decide, inter alia, all disputes regarding

settlement terms arising during the documentation thereof not

resolved by the parties themselves. The parties also stipulated,

inter alia, that any decision by the undersigned regarding documentation of the settlement shall be binding and from which the parties

specifically waive any right to appeal.

On June 18, 2008, the Court received a letter and a pleading

from Plaintiff’s counsel and Defendants’ counsel respectively,

detailing a dispute between the parties regarding language to be

Case 3:08-cv-00097-WQH-LSP Document 19 Filed 07/01/08 Page 1 of 2
 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

 10

 11

 12

 13

 14

 15

 16

 17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2 08CV0097 

placed in their Settlement Agreement.

The Court has reviewed and considered both the letter and

pleading. The Court is cognizant that resolution between the

parties must effectuate the parties’ intent and must have finality,

to the extent possible. Therefore, having reviewed the language

proposed by the parties, the Court concludes that the language

proposed by Plaintiff more adequately effectuates the parties’

intent and addresses the finality sought in concluding the parties’

disputes.

Therefore, paragraphs 8, 9 and 10, as proposed by Plaintiff

(See Defendant Har Construction, Inc.’s Statement Re Settlement

Language, Exh. 3) shall be used by the parties in the settlement

documentation, with one exception:

At paragraph 10, the fifth word of the first sentence

(“timely”) shall be changed to the word “future.”

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: July 1, 2008

Hon. Leo S. Papas

U.S. Magistrate Judge

Case 3:08-cv-00097-WQH-LSP Document 19 Filed 07/01/08 Page 2 of 2