Bankers Life And Casualty Company v. Miller et al
Filing
167
MOTION by Plaintiff Bankers Life And Casualty Company for judgment (Joint) Entry of Order Granting Judgment, MOTION by Plaintiff Bankers Life And Casualty Company to dismiss (Joint) Entry of Order Granting Dismisal (Siegel, Kathryn)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION
BANKERS LIFE AND CASUALTY
COMPANY,
No. 1:14-cv-3165
Plaintiff,
v.
Honorable Manish S. Shah
RICHARD MILLER, PRESTON
PARSONS, RAY SANCHEZ, JOSHUA
BERGER, LUKE DINGLEDINE,
ADRIAN MONTES,
Defendants.
JOINT MOTION FOR ENTRY OF ORDER GRANTING
JUDGMENT AND DISMISSAL
Plaintiff Bankers Life and Casualty Company (“Bankers Life”), by its counsel, and
Defendant Richard Miller (collectively, “the Moving Parties”), jointly move for the entry of an
Order granting Judgment to Bankers Life against Defendant Miller in the amount of $4,000.00
(Four Thousand Dollars and No Cents), and dismissal with prejudice of all claims against Mr.
Miller. After entry of this Order, the Parties request that a Final Judgment be entered in this
case, as this case will then be resolved as to all Defendants. In support of this Motion, the
Moving Parties state as follows:
1.
On April 30, 2014, Bankers Life filed its Complaint, making claims against eight
former agents and employees of Bankers Life including Defendant Richard Miller. (Dkt. 1).
Bankers Life subsequently filed its First Amended Complaint on August 13, 2014. (Dkt. 40).
2.
In early April 2017, Bankers Life and Defendant Miller reached agreement on
settlement terms, and a confidential written Settlement Agreement (“the Agreement”) setting
forth the terms was fully executed by April 11, 2017.
-1-
3.
In the Agreement, among other terms, Defendant Miller agreed to pay Bankers
Life $4,000.00, to be paid by July 1, 2017, and after such payment, the Moving Parties would
jointly request dismissal of the claims against Miller, with each party bearing his or its own
attorneys’ fees and costs.
4.
Thereafter, Defendant Miller informed Bankers Life that he was unable to pay the
settlement amount by the due date.
Bankers Life extended the deadline for payment, but
Defendant Miller remains unable to pay the settlement amount.
5.
The Parties have continued their discussions regarding resolution, and have now
agreed to a judgment being entered in the amount of $4,000 -- rather than actual payment of that
amount at this time -- as a prerequisite to dismissal.
6.
The Parties also acknowledge the necessity of disclosing these particular
settlement terms in this Motion. Mr. Miller appears to be able to comply with all other terms of
the Agreement.
7.
Previously, the claims against all other Defendants have been resolved.
WHEREFORE, For the reasons set forth above, the Moving Parties jointly move for the
entry of an Order granting Judgment to Bankers Life against Defendant Miller in the amount of
$4,000.00 (Four Thousand Dollars and No Cents), and dismissal of all claims against Miller with
prejudice, with each party bearing his or its own attorneys’ fees and costs After entry of this
Order, the Moving Parties request that a Final Judgment be entered in this case, as this case will
then be resolved as to all Defendants.
-2-
Respectfully submitted,
BANKERS LIFE AND CASUALTY
COMPANY
DEFENDANT RICHARD MILLER
/s/ Kathryn E. Siegel
David K. Haase
Kathryn E. Siegel
LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
321 N. Clark Street, Suite 1000
Chicago, IL 60654
(312) 372-5520
/s/ Richard Miller
rickmiller712@gmail.com
Attorneys for Plaintiff
Dated: February 20, 2018
-3-
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
Kathryn E. Siegel, an attorney, hereby certifies that on February 20, 2018, she caused a
copy of the foregoing using the ECF system which will send notification of such filing to
Defendant Richard Miller.
/s/ Kathryn E. Siegel
Kathryn E. Siegel
Firmwide:152839580.2 054835.1380
-4-
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?