Newman et al v. Harlan et al

Filing 96

ORDER granting 92 Motion for Court Approval of Settlement as to Plaintiff Nancy Newman, by Judge Robert E. Blackburn on 8/25/2014.(trlee, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge Robert E. Blackburn
Civil Action Number: 1:12-cv-02797-REB-KMT
NANCY NEWMAN, Individually and as PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE
ESTATE OF JOHN NEWMAN
Plaintiffs
v.
MICHAEL D. HARLAN and J. L. SMITH TRUCKING CO.
Defendants

ORDER APPROVING SETTLEMENT AS TO PLAINTIFF NANCY NEWMAN
Blackburn, J.
The matter is before the court on Defendants’ Unopposed Motion for Court
Approval of Settlement as to Plaintiff Nancy Newman [#92],1 filed August 22, 2014.
The parties notified the court that this matter had settled (see Minute Order [#88], filed
July 16, 2014), and dismissal papers are due September 15, 2014 (see Minute Order
[#91], filed August 6, 2014). However, for the reasons set forth in the motion, and in an
abundance of caution, defendants ask the court to approve the settlement and
proposed distribution of settlement proceeds to plaintiff, Nancy Newman, individually.
Having reviewed the motion and its exhibits and the relevant record, I find and
conclude that the motion should be granted. Ms. Newman’s counsel has confirmed that
his client was actively involved in the prosecution of this case and the negotiations that
led to the settlement Thus, it appears the agreement was fairly and honestly negotiated.
1

“[#92]” is an example of the convention I use to identify the docket number assigned to a specific
paper by the court’s case management and electronic case filing system (CM/ECF). I use this convention
throughout this order.

Ms. Newman’s counsel indicated further that his client “has the cognitive ability to
understand the settlement agreement and sign the release as well as the cognitive
ability to dispose of and/or invest the settlement monies,” despite her medical history
and ongoing issues. The parties believe that the proposed settlement is fair and
reasonable, and my own review finds nothing to contradict that assessment.
THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED as follows:
1. That Defendants’ Unopposed Motion for Court Approval of Settlement as
to Plaintiff Nancy Newman [#92], filed August 22, 2014, is GRANTED; and
2. That the parties’ settlement, as evidenced by the Proposed Distribution of
Settlement Monies, attached as Exhibit D to the motion, is APPROVED.
Dated August 25, 2014, at Denver, Colorado.
BY THE COURT:

2