Grant Walsh

The plaintiffs brought a motion to enforce a settlement agreement, alleging the defendants failed to satisfactorily complete earth works and grading on their property as required by the minutes of settlement.

The parties relied on conflicting unsworn engineering reports regarding the adequacy of a buffer zone, berms, and general conformance with the grading plan.

The court found it could not resolve the factual disputes on the written record alone.

The court withheld its final order for 45 days to allow the parties to make submissions on holding a mini-trial or ordering the experts to meet and confer under the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The moving party sought to combine two related actions arising from an insurance claim following a residential fire and to strike the other claimant’s statement of claim.

The actions were brought separately by former spouses asserting competing interests in insurance proceeds.

The court considered Rule 6.01(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure governing consolidation or joint hearings where proceedings share common questions of law or fact or arise from the same transaction.

Finding that the claims involved overlapping factual issues and competing interests in the same insurance proceeds, the court held that the most expeditious and fair procedure was to have the actions tried together.

The request to strike the other action was not granted, and directions were provided for joint discovery, production, mediation, and potential cross-claims.