Hon. Remy Smith_May 25, 2023_[civkin-ftr409]_20230525-1001_01d98eefe980ca80

[image]

## Core Synopsis

Both parties agree that the work stipulated in the original settlement was not completed, and more work is required to address potential mold issues. The defendant's counsel (Speaker 2) acknowledges this failure and is willing to stipulate to non-compliance, proposing a compromise to move forward with remediation. However, the plaintiff's counsel (Speaker 3) is leveraging this non-compliance as a tactical advantage in a related harassment case, making a simple resolution difficult. He is using the motion to force a discussion about a broader "global resolution" that addresses the perceived misuse of the original settlement's release clauses in the other case. The judge, recognizing the strategic maneuvering, has paused the motion to give the parties two weeks to negotiate a stipulation that might satisfy the plaintiff's wider concerns, effectively calling their bluff while keeping the court's involvement minimal.

## The Negotiation Deadlock

### 1. The Point of Agreement
- **Acknowledged Failure**: Both parties and their experts agree that the work outlined in the original "so-ordered stipulation" was not fully completed.
- **Admission of Inaccuracy**: The defendant's counsel (Speaker 2) openly admits that his client paid for a scope of work that was not delivered by the vendor (SERVPRO) and that affidavits attesting to completion were inaccurate.
- **Need for More Work**: There is no dispute that additional remediation is necessary. A site visit on March 21st established a scope of work involving six or seven probes to investigate potential mold.

### 2. The Point of Contention
The immediate dispute that stalled the remediation effort centered on the purpose of the probes.
- **Speaker 2's Position (Defendant)**: The agreement was for a *visual* inspection via probes first. If the visuals indicated mold, then material testing would follow. SERVPRO was stopped because they were not prepared to take samples for testing, only to perform visual checks.
- **Speaker 3's Position (Plaintiff)**: The probes are pointless without taking material samples for testing to determine if active mold is present. A visual-only approach is insufficient.

### 3. The Underlying Strategic Conflict
The disagreement over probe testing is merely a symptom of a larger strategic conflict.
- **The Connected Case**: The plaintiff has a related harassment claim at the Loft Board. The defendant is allegedly using a "release of claims" provision from the original (and unfulfilled) settlement to argue that the plaintiff waived their right to the harassment claim.
- **Plaintiff's Leverage**: The plaintiff's counsel (Speaker 3) is unwilling to resolve the mold issue in isolation. He argues that the defendant cannot benefit from a settlement provision (the release clause) when they failed to provide the consideration for that settlement (completing the work). He is using the current motion to force a resolution that neutralizes the defendant's argument in the other case.
- **Defendant's Blindsiding**: The defendant's counsel (Speaker 2) was taken by surprise by the introduction of the "global settlement" issue, stating it had never been discussed in their prior, seemingly cooperative negotiations to simply finish the work.

### 4. The Court's Intervention
The judge (Speaker 1) identified the strategic nature of the plaintiff's position and proposed a path forward to de-escalate.
- **Proposed Compromise**: The judge suggested testing a small number of the probes (e.g., two, chosen by the plaintiff) as a reasonable cost-benefit compromise to move past the immediate impasse.
- **Final Ruling**: Recognizing the deeper conflict, the judge will mark the motion as "reserved" and hold it for two weeks. This creates a window for the two parties to draft a stipulation that resolves not just the testing issue but also addresses the plaintiff's concerns about the language affecting the other case. The judge will check in after two weeks to assess progress.

## Next Move

**@Speaker 3 (Mike Kozak)**
- [ ] Draft stipulation language that resolves the work-completion issue and addresses the concerns regarding the "release of claims" clause in the related case - [TBD, within 2 weeks]

**@Speaker 2 (David)**
- [ ] Review and negotiate the stipulation language proposed by Speaker 3 with the client - [TBD, within 2 weeks]

**@Both Counsels**
- [ ] Request an intervention conference with the judge if negotiations stall before the two-week deadline - [TBD]
- [ ] Participate in a virtual conference with the judge in two weeks to report on the status of the stipulation - [TBD, in 2 weeks]