Case 5:16-cv-12149 Document 54 Filed 04/18/19 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 328

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
BECKLEY DIVISION
FRANK G. TREADWAY, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:16-cv-12149

BLUESTONE COAL CORP., et al.,
Defendants.
ORDER
The Court has reviewed the Plaintiffs’ proposed Judgment Order (Document 47), the
Defendant’s Objections to Proposed Judgment Order (Document 52), and the Plaintiffs’ Reply to
Defendants’ Objections to Proposed Judgment Order (Document 53).
The Plaintiffs propose a judgment order memorializing and formally entering judgment on
the parties’ settlement agreement. The mediated settlement agreement established deadlines for
installment payments, together with penalties of $1000 per day for any late payments. The
Defendants object to incorporating the penalties into the judgment order, arguing that the parties
agreed to pre-judgment penalties, but not post-judgment penalties. The Defendants argue that,
following entry of the judgment order, statutory interest should replace the penalties for late
payments. They argue that the penalty is excessive and could result in a windfall for the Plaintiffs
and their counsel. The Plaintiffs contend that the agreement does not distinguish between preand post-judgment treatment of late payments and note that the parties have previously negotiated
reductions in penalties and extensions of deadlines as a result of the Defendants’ late payments.

 Case 5:16-cv-12149 Document 54 Filed 04/18/19 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 329

They argue that the parties’ mediated settlement agreement is an enforceable contract that should
not be altered by the Court.
The Court finds that the terms of the mediated settlement agreement are enforceable and
unaltered by the entry of judgment. Nothing in the parties’ mediated settlement agreement limits
the accrual of penalties to late payments prior to the entry of judgment. Indeed, continuing to fail
to make required payments following entry of judgment may properly lead to more stringent, not
less stringent, consequences. The amount of any penalties remains fully in the control of the
Defendants, who can avoid additional penalties by making all payments in full within the agreedupon time frame. Accordingly, the Court ORDERS that the Defendant’s Objections to Proposed
Judgment Order (Document 52) be OVERRULED.
The Court DIRECTS the Clerk to send a copy of this Order to counsel of record and to
any unrepresented party.
ENTER:

April 18, 2019