Motelewski v. Maui Police Department et al

Filing 170

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF GOOD FAITH SETTLEMENT 38 , 92 . Signed by Judge BARRY M. KURREN on 3/27/2013. (afc)CERTIFICATE OF SERVICEParticipants registered to receive electronic notifica tions received this document electronically at the e-mail address listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF). Participants not registered to receive electronic notifications were served by first class mail on the date of this docket entry

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII
TRACY MOTELEWSKI,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
MAUI POLICE DEPARTMENT, et )
al.
)
)
Defendants.
)
______________________________ )

CV. No. 11-00778 BMK
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF
GOOD FAITH SETTLEMENT

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
FOR APPROVAL OF GOOD FAITH SETTLEMENT
Before the Court is Plaintiff Tracy Motelewski’s Motion for Approval
of Good Faith Settlement and Defendant Steven Gunderson’s joinder to that
motion. (Docs. # 38, 92). After careful consideration of the motions, the
supporting and opposing memoranda, and the attached documentation, the Court
GRANTS the motion for approval of good faith settlement and Defendant
Gunderson’s joinder.
DISCUSSION
The procedural and factual background of this case is summarized in
the Court’s August 30, 2012 Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Plaintiff’s
and Defendant’s Motions For Summary Judgment (Doc. # 90.) In the instant

motion, Plaintiff seeks approval of a settlement between herself and Gunderson,
which is confidential and filed under seal. (Doc. # 42.) The County asserts that: 1)
the parties did not enter the settlement in good faith; and 2) the special verdict form
should include Gunderson. (Doc. # 122.)
Under Hawaii law, a party must petition the court for a hearing on the
issue of whether a settlement was made in good faith. Haw. Rev. Stat. §
663-15.5(b). Any non-settling party may file an objection and such party bears the
burden of proving a lack of good faith. Id. In determining whether the settlement
was entered to in good faith, the Court must consider the totality of the
circumstances. Troyer v. Adams, 77 P.3d 83, 109 (Haw. 2003). In Troyer, the
Court noted HRS § 663-15’s purpose is to encourage settlements. Id. at 110. In
evaluating the settlement, the Court may consider the following factors:
(1) the type of case and difficulty of proof at trial, e.g., rear-end motor
vehicle collision, medical malpractice, product liability, etc.; (2) the
realistic approximation of total damages that the plaintiff seeks; (3)
the strength of the plaintiff’s claim and the realistic likelihood of his
or her success at trial; (4) the predicted expense of litigation; (5) the
relative degree of fault of the settling tortfeasors; (6) the amount of
consideration paid to settle the claims; (7) the insurance policy limits
and solvency of the joint tortfeasors; (8) the relationship among the
parties and whether it is conducive to collusion or wrongful conduct;
and (9) any other evidence that the settlement is aimed at injuring the
interests of a non-settling tortfeasor or motivated by other wrongful
purpose.
Id. at 111.
2

After reviewing the record in this case, the Court finds that the
settlement was entered into in good faith. Gunderson’s attorney represented to
Plaintiff’s counsel that Gunderson had no assets, and settling with Gunderson
allowed Plaintiff to avoid the costs of trial. (Doc. # 38, Decl. of Marion ReyesBurke, ¶ 5.) Although it does not appear Plaintiff would have great difficulty
proving her case against Gunderson, the cost of going to trial and the amount the
claim settled for in light of Gunderson’s limited ability to pay weigh strongly in
favor of the settlement.
The County argues that the settlement is collusive and Gunderson’s
declaration is inaccurate. The Court concludes that the County has not proved that
the settlement was the product of wrongdoing. The County also argues that
Gunderson’s declaration omits Plaintiff’s consent to the search of her vehicle.
(Doc. # 122 at 6.) This argument is unconvincing because Plaintiff’s counsel
produced evidence that Gunderson coerced her consent. (Doc. # 46, Ex. 6.) The
declaration is not inaccurate for failing to mention consent. After weighing the
relevant factors under Troyer, the Court approves the settlement because the parties
entered it in good faith. The Court will decide the issue regarding the special
verdict forms at a time closer to trial.

3

CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion for
Approval of Good Faith Settlement and Gunderson’s joinder to that motion.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawaii, March 27, 2013
IT IS SO ORDERED.

/S/ Barry M. Kurren
Barry M. Kurren
United States Magistrate Judge

Motelewski v. County of Maui, et al., Civ. No. 11-00778 BMK, ORDER GRANTING
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF GOOD FAITH SETTLEMENT
4