Choice Hotels International, Inc. v. Hassanali et al
Filing
18
MEMORANDUM OPINION and ORDER DIRECTING Plaintiff to supplement its motion to vacate judgment as to Defendant Shebana Noorani within 14 days to include the amount satisfied so that the record reflects the amount remaining as to the other defendants (c/m to Defendants Shiraz Hassanali, Shebana Noorani, Jane Kou, Mark Hsu, and Wayne Hsu 10/31/16 sat). Signed by Judge Deborah K. Chasanow on 10/31/2016. (sat, Chambers)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
:
CHOICE HOTELS INTERNATIONAL,
INC.
:
v.
:
Civil Action No. DKC 16-1282
:
SHIRAZ HASSANALI, et al.
:
MEMORANDUM OPINION and ORDER
Pending before the court is a motion to vacate judgment
filed
pursuant
to
Rule
60(b)(5)
by
International, Inc. (“Plaintiff”).
advises
that
judgment
Defendant
a
amount
settlement
and
Shebana
was
requests
Noorani
but
Plaintiff,
(ECF No. 17).
reached
the
Choice
for
judgment
remain
in
a
Hotels
Plaintiff
portion
of
the
be
vacated
as
to
full
effect
as
to
Defendants Shiraz Hassanli, Jane Kou, Mark Hsu, and Wayne Hsu.
Pursuant to Rule 60(b)(5), a party may obtain relief from a
judgment or final order where “the judgment has been satisfied,
released, or discharged; it is based on an earlier judgment that
has been reversed or vacated; or applying it prospectively is no
longer equitable.”
In this civil case, Plaintiff asked the court to confirm an
arbitration
award
and
to
enter
judgment
holding
five
individuals, namely Shebana Noorani, Shiraz Hassanali, Jane Kou,
Mark Hsu and Wayne Hsu (“Defendants”), jointly and severally
liable for the award amount of $147,316.74.
(ECF No. 1).
After
Defendants failed to respond, the court entered judgment for
Plaintiff, finding that there was a valid contract between the
parties providing for arbitration and that the dispute resolved
in
the
clause.
or
arbitration
was
(ECF No. 14).
otherwise
challenge
within
the
scope
of
the
arbitration
Because all defendants failed to plead
the
award,
the
arbitration
award
was
confirmed by default.
Here, the court entered default judgment against the five
Defendants jointly and severally as the arbitration award had
stipulated
and
as
Plaintiff
had
requested
in
its
complaint.
Plaintiff now requests the judgment be vacated as to Defendant
Noorani to account for a settlement between those two parties.
Plaintiff has not provided the amount of settlement and requests
that the court leave the judgment in full effect as to the other
Defendants.
Generally, however, payment of a judgment by one
tortfeasor bars a plaintiff from recovery of the same judgment
from another tortfeasor.
See Underwood-Gary v. Mathews, 366 Md.
660, 667-69 (2001) (“[D]ouble recovery for the same harm is not
permissible.”); MD Rule 2-626; see also Restatement (Third) of
Torts § 25(b) (2000) (“When a judgment includes a determination
of the entirety of recoverable damages suffered by the plaintiff
for an indivisible injury and provides for their recovery by the
2
plaintiff against multiple defendants, payment by one or more
judgment
defendants
of
less
than
the
full
amount
of
the
recoverable damages constitutes a reduction of the plaintiff's
right to recover from the judgment defendants in the amount of
the value of the payment.”); Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine
Research, Inc., 401 U.S. 321, 348 (1971).
Because any amount
paid by Defendant Noorani affects the amount remaining as to the
others, Plaintiff will be required to supplement the motion with
the amount satisfied by Defendant Noorani.
Accordingly, it is this 31st day of October, 2016, by the
United
States
District
Court
for
the
District
of
Maryland,
ORDERED that:
1.
Plaintiff
is
directed
to
supplement
its
motion
to
vacate judgment as to Defendant Shebana Noorani within 14 days
to include the amount satisfied so that the record reflects the
amount remaining as to the other defendants;
2.
The
clerk
will
transmit
copies
of
this
Order
counsel for Plaintiff and to Defendants.
/s/
DEBORAH K. CHASANOW
United States District Judge
3
to
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?